Why Buy a Leica?

[Lee Shively]

I liked Roger's answer. In fact, I was going to use it myself until I saw it was already used.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Mystique.

The same holds true for Alpa, Hasselblad, Nikon, Graflex ...
One can extend that even further: Rolls, Bugatti, Rolex... Vincent Black Shadow...

 

[Dave Miller]

Ahhh! Vincent Black Shadow; now you have my attention. Two please.

 

[Jim Jones]

Temujin -- A camera body is rather more than a box to hold the film and lens. The Leica rangefinder assembly is complex and extremely precise. The Leica film advance is very smooth in comparison to some other cameras. The shutter is quiet. I've managed to wreck two Leicas over many years, but it wasn't easy. Perhaps few other cameras would have survived. Certainly some didn't. I bought a new M4 body in 1970 for about $210. It has provided reliable photography for less than $6 a year, a tiny fraction of the film cost. One lens is as old, the other four are older. They also have performed flawlessly. Some of my Nikon gear has been almost as reliable. A few cheaper brands have been less camera for their cost.

Products from decades ago may not predict the quality of current items. In some rapidly evolving areas of photography, a lifetime investment in equipment may be less practical than it once was. At my age (74) I wouldn't invest heavily in cameras that should last many decades. However, I'm glad I did that when I did.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Mystique.

The same holds true for Alpa, Hasselblad, Nikon, Graflex ...
One can extend that even further: Rolls, Bugatti, Rolex... Vincent Black Shadow...

Yes, but where does the mystique come from? And what sustains it?

Frances has just been printing some recent negs of mine from the Pentacon Six TL: zero mystique. They're very nice: any shortcomings are down to me as a photographer, not the camera. It's a great camera. But it's not an Alpa.

Alpa, Graflex, Nikon, Graflex I have or have had. Wouldn't touch a Graflex 4x5 press camera: rather have MPP, but the XL is underrated (mine is modified to take RB backs). Nikon? Yes, but it's merely a very good tool, like a Lee Enfield: it's as much history as magic, at least for me. But there is something different about the Alpa for me: a higher percentage of 'magic' pictures.

Rolls? Nah. Considered it; driven friends' cars; decided I wouldn't get my money's worth with any Roller I could afford. If I had that kind of money, it's a Bristol, no question (and I've driven more Bristols than Rollers). Bugatti: dunno, but again, if I had the money, Bentley wins hands down.

Rolex? Waste of money. When I found I could actually afford one -- just -- about 25 years ago, I went to the local agents' with a good bit more than half an intention of buying one. If I were a very rich man who didn't much care about watches, I might buy one, but I'd rather have a Patek Philippe. As it is, my old Omega Seamaster just needs a new strap.

Shadows are of course completely different, but even then, if I had the money, I'd be at least as tempted by a Hesketh or a Brough (both of which I've ridden).

By the time you're in the stratosphere of mystique, few people have direct experience. Even fewer have the money to indulge their whims (I'm definitely in this category) and they may also consider their money better spent elsewhere.

Then again, I can't think of any pistol for which I'd trade my .45 Colt National Match, but in that case, there's sentimental attachment: my late father-in-law bought it new in the 30s. Mystique? Only partly.

But cameras are not that expensive. Surprisingly many people can, if they are prepared to give up other things, afford a Leica (though not necessarily an Alpa). Sure, some people buy 'em on mystique alone. Others buy them because there is no other camera they'd rather use. I think Lee is with me on that one. It ain't just mystique!

Cheers,

Roger

 

[David Brown]

I'll be willing to bet... you couldn't tell the difference between an image made with a CV lens and a Leica lens. 99.3% of all photographers can't shoot anywhere near the capabilities of their lens.

A long time ago, I went from a Minolta X-crappo to a FM2. Unreal the difference in my photography. I did it because the Rokkor lens were not up to snuff, ...

:confused:

Let me be sure I understand. "99.3% of all photographers" can't shoot to the capabilities of their lenses, and can't tell the difference between lens A and B, but you can and Rokkors weren't up to your standards? Not saying it isn't true, just want to be sure.

 

[dslater]

Leica is better because the diaphragm is close to the front of the lens. What the hell is with that anyway?

My dad's got a couple of 50's-era M-series Leicas. They are solid and heavy and work really well. But they're just 35mm cameras. You'd have to look pretty hard to see the difference between output from a Leica and any other camera with a well made modern lens. If optics is your primary concern, get a medium format rangefinder and the format difference alone will already kick Leica's sorry butt (except maybe if you're shooting some coveted rare stock of leftover techpan or something really fine grain, in which case the Leica might come close).

For half the price of a Leica you can have top notch Canon L glass and a used 35mm SLR body to go with it. Or any of a number of great medium format cameras. I think even the excellent Mamiya 6 & 7 rangefinders are cheaper than Leica schlag.

Historically they were excellent cameras. Now it's a sentimentalism & branding thing; like collecting old jaguars or something, but not quite as expensive. And they don't need continual repair like classic cars.

I sure do love that metal and leather smell when dad pulls out his old Leicas though.

The thing is that for wide angle lenses, RF cameras have a couple of inherent advantages. First, because there's no mirror, the lens can stick back into the camera. This allows a simpler non-retrofocus lens design which has far fewer aberrations. Second, for short lenses, rangefinder focusing is more accurate than SLR focusing. Of course for long lenses, the SLR has the focusing advantage.

 

[dslater]

Did you read question, asked about Lecia.

Yes I read the OP, just because he has a Bessa, there's no reason to assume his camera is going to "crap out"

 

[k_jupiter]

:confused:

Let me be sure I understand. "99.3% of all photographers" can't shoot to the capabilities of their lenses, and can't tell the difference between lens A and B, but you can and Rokkors weren't up to your standards? Not saying it isn't true, just want to be sure.

Yep. Actually, it was the camera itself that was a piece of crap. X-370 or something. The Rokkor lens themselves were probably just fine. I had been shooting with a different Minolta for about 5 years at that time, An XD5. When it STB, I bought a cheap body to replace it.

I was in my second year of photo school, taking hundreds of photos, knowing they were in focus when I shot them, and not having the prints to prove it.

If you are going to buy a camera at this point, buy what you want. I looked at FE2s and FM2s and decided the feel of the FM2 fit my hand. The focus problem went away, the camera body itself was an extension of my hand, and more importantly, my eye. It got me through photo school, I still use it as my most reliable camera, 21 years later.

And honestly, you can't tell the difference between a shot taken with a Rokkor 50mm 1.7 and a Nikor 50mm 1.4. Not even at 11x14. I have a ton of negatives taken in the early 80s when I had both the XD5 and a Nikkormat. I could never tell the difference between the two.

So can I out shoot my Nikors? Not even close. I have a 105mm 2.5 and 35mm 2.0. They do what I ask them to. The only reason I have other 35mm cameras is I sometimes want a different look, that bokah thing. *L* Like an old 50 YO Industar gives you.

BTW - 87.34% of all statistics are made up on the fly.

tim in san jose

 

[Craig]

The Leica film advance is very smooth in comparison to some other cameras.

I dunno - I've used an M6 and I was underwhelmed. Yes, its nice but I don't think it was all the hype made it out to be. In terms of a buttery smooth film advance the best I've ever used was a Nikon F3. I took off the motor drive just to be able to advance the film manually!

Currently I have a Leica IIIc, and I take it out and use it when I'm feeling nostalgic and to give it some exercise. It's a slow, awkward, hard to focus camera, compared to something like medium format Fuji rangfinder. However, I use it as a piece of history, and enjoy it because of that. It was also owned a photographer who I very much admired, who is now passed on, so I use it more as tribute to him than as just a photographic tool.

For the OP, take a Leica and try it out. Then you'll know if its for you or not. Probably only you can answer if its right for you.

 

[fotch]

Yes I read the OP, just because he has a Bessa, there's no reason to assume his camera is going to "crap out"

Is this what you assumed? I seem to have hit a sensitive spot in your thin skin. Do not take it personal.

I was simply stating what is usually the case with any tool (camera is a tool). Better metals and other material, more precise machining, perhaps more hand assembly, more inspections, usually means better quality and longer more dependable life at a higher cost.

For just a few examples: Chefs buy better grade knives for a reason. Machinist will buy more accurate measuring tools. Woodworkers will buy better chisels that hold a sharp edge longer. Even your tires come in different quality grades. China seems to be having a big problem with quality, but have a lower price. Note the recent tire, toy, and food recalls.

Few of us own the very best of everything we buy. However, if your business or life depends on it, price may not be an issue, at least with me. I have found, generally speaking, buy it right, you buy it once, buy it cheap, it ends up in the heap. I would rather have a used tool that is in good condition rather than brand new but won’t last. YMMV

Most (but not all) of the less expensive cameras (and other tools) I have owned have needed expensive repair (relative to their cost) fairly soon. The better cameras (and other tools) I own either have never needed repair or went decades before needing attention. Which would you rather put more money, something that, after a short time (after warranty ran out) malfunction or you could no longer depend on it or something that has lasted years and years and years?

TETO

 

[luvmydogs]

I haven't read all the responses, so I apologize if mine repeats something someone else has already said.

Why buy a Leica? I for one am first to admit that I don't believe it is the camera, but rather, the photographer, who makes good images. However, I have a Leica because I wanted one. I wanted a finely crafted instrument as I feel it adds to my enjoyment of photography. Sure I could've bought a Bessa, etc. but I wanted a Leica. Not because of need, but because of want. If one can afford one and wants one, why not? I don't believe one needs to justify the purchase.

 

[temujin]

thanks for all your helpful replys. having never actually handled a leica personally, my question might have seemed a bit ignorant, but you have made some good points about ergonomics and baseline which have made me see some of the leica's advantages.

yes, you are right, a camera is not just a light tight box, i exagerated a bit in saying that. but its the light tight part that really matters, not the bells and whistles; well, on an rf, the real crucial parts are the shutter and the rf/viewfinder, right? perhaps my pictures would be a bit better with a more ergonomical camera with a wider baseline. but so far, i have had no focusing problems with voigt, and the camera feels just fine in my hands. but yes, i have never hadled a leica, and perhaps i will see things differently when i get the chance to.

a lot of people comment on how quiet the shutter is on the leicas, but my voigt is not all that loud. and the volume of the shutter is not a big issue for me anyways- when people on the street see this crazy looking guy with a camera, the sound of a shutter tripping isn't going to change their demeanor much! lets just say that i don't fit in well with a crowd, so there's not much sense in attempting discretion.

and as to the fact that leicas are collectibles, well, the only reason i buy cameras is to take pictures. i guess i am a rather shortsighted guy.

 

[Alan9940]

hi all, after shooting with slr's for a while, i became commited to rangefinder cameras- first in medium format, and now in 35mm. my main camera now is a voigtlander R3A. i have been very satisfied with this camera and the CV lenses. for many years, i have wanted to own a leica camera, but i have began to wonder recently- why? yes, some of my favorite photographers shoot with leicas, but is the great expense of these cameras worth it?

Why do you want a Leica when you seem perfectly satisfied with the Bessa and CV optics?

i understand the reason for buying the leica lenses, they are top notch optics from all accounts. if i could afford them, i would maybe buy them, but the CV lenses get the job done for me. as a working class person who does fine art photography in his spare time, paying over $3000 for a wide-angle lens is out of the question for me. but i understand the superiority of leica optics.

The Leitz optics are, unlike just about any other lens line that I know, built to a precision with the full intention that they be used wide open. I own Nikon lenses, Canon lenses, Tamron lenses and quite a few of the top-o-da-line lenses for LF, and there ain't one among the group that I'd use at its widest aperture. Yet, I'll shoot any of my Leitz glass wide open without thinking about it!

however, i would have difficulty in justifying buying a leica body, even if i had the money. after all, a camera body is merely a light-tight box. yes, a leica body is more well built than a voigtlander and will easily outlive it. but for the price of a M7 body, i can buy 6 CV R3A bodies! if my R3A craps out, it can be cheaply replaced.

This statement seems to be voiced by someone who has never ACTUALLY held a Leica M in is hands. A Leica MP is, IMO, the pinnacle of a manufactured product and, quite simply, a joy to behold and use. Do you need it? No. Will it make you a better photographer? No. Is a Rolex the same watch as a Timex? No. Horses for courses...

i am certainly not saying that leicas are not great cameras, i am just questioning why one should pay such exorbitant prices for a leica body when cheaper camera models will do the same job. and the leica folks think that just by placing the little "leica" logo on an item, they have justification to ridiculously overprice those items. you can get a leica camera case, a leica strap, and innumerable other little items at twice or three times the cost of similar items without the leica name. and some of leica's digital cameras are merely rebadged panasonics with a big price markup. it seems to me that, in many cases, a leica is merely a status symbol. yes, a good camera, but a status symbol nonetheless.

Did you know that most Leica photogs cover the red dot with black tape? I don't think any of us give one hoot about the logo!

 

[panastasia]

Did you know that most Leica photogs cover the red dot with black tape? I don't think any of us give one hoot about the logo!

Maybe, because they knew their particular Leica (body) was manufactured by Minolta. I know some of them were at some point in time and I'm surprized that wasn't mentioned in this thread.

 

[Alan9940]

Maybe, because they knew their particular Leica (body) was manufactured by Minolta. I know some of them were at some point in time and I'm surprized that wasn't mentioned in this thread.

If I remember correctly, there was a small Minolta rangefinder--Minolta CL?--that had some loose association with Leitz. I can't remember any of the details. That said, there is no Leica M rangefinder in the history of these cameras that was manufactured by Minolta. There were some very fine Leitz optics produced in Canada, but that's another story...

The covering of the red dot and any other "distraction" on the body is to remain as unobtrusive as possible. For street photography--a certain forte of the M gestalt--to blend in and become part of the action is key to your success! You don't want anyone around you taking notice of the camera.

 

[panastasia]

If I remember correctly, there was a small Minolta rangefinder--Minolta CL?--that had some loose association with Leitz. I can't remember any of the details. That said, there is no Leica M rangefinder in the history of these cameras that was manufactured by Minolta. There were some very fine Leitz optics produced in Canada, but that's another story...

AlanH,

I'm sorry I can't verify this with a reference, but I did read somewhere that some "Leica bodies" were made by Minolta (more than a loose association with Leitz, and not that long ago - in the last decade, I think). The Minolta rangefinder, on the other hand, was well known as a Minolta product and not associated with any other brand or logo, AFAIK.

Regards,
Paul

 

[dslater]

Is this what you assumed? I seem to have hit a sensitive spot in your thin skin. Do not take it personal.

I was simply stating what is usually the case with any tool (camera is a tool). Better metals and other material, more precise machining, perhaps more hand assembly, more inspections, usually means better quality and longer more dependable life at a higher cost.

For just a few examples: Chefs buy better grade knives for a reason. Machinist will buy more accurate measuring tools. Woodworkers will buy better chisels that hold a sharp edge longer. Even your tires come in different quality grades. China seems to be having a big problem with quality, but have a lower price. Note the recent tire, toy, and food recalls.

Few of us own the very best of everything we buy. However, if your business or life depends on it, price may not be an issue, at least with me. I have found, generally speaking, buy it right, you buy it once, buy it cheap, it ends up in the heap. I would rather have a used tool that is in good condition rather than brand new but won’t last. YMMV

Most (but not all) of the less expensive cameras (and other tools) I have owned have needed expensive repair (relative to their cost) fairly soon. The better cameras (and other tools) I own either have never needed repair or went decades before needing attention. Which would you rather put more money, something that, after a short time (after warranty ran out) malfunction or you could no longer depend on it or something that has lasted years and years and years?

TETO

First of all I am not thin skinned and I don't take it personally. Second, I owe you an apology. When I read the OP, I missed the part where he mentioned his camera crapping out - put in that context your post takes on a whole different demeanor.

 

[dslater]

AlanH,

I'm sorry I can't verify this with a reference, but I did read somewhere that some "Leica bodies" were made by Minolta (more than a loose association with Leitz, and not that long ago - in the last decade, I think). The Minolta rangefinder, on the other hand, was well known as a Minolta product and not associated with any other brand or logo, AFAIK.

Regards,
Paul

I think you are referring to the Leica/Minolta CL and the Minolta CLE. Both of these cameras were made by Minolta. The CL was originally made for Leica and had the Leica brand on it. Later, Leica stopped selling it under their name, but Minolta continued to sell it under the Minolta brand. After that, Minolta started producing the Minolat CLE. There's some information on these cameras here:
http://www.cameraquest.com/leicacl.htm
http://www.cameraquest.com/cle.htm

Dan

 

[Alan9940]

AlanH,

I'm sorry I can't verify this with a reference, but I did read somewhere that some "Leica bodies" were made by Minolta (more than a loose association with Leitz, and not that long ago - in the last decade, I think). The Minolta rangefinder, on the other hand, was well known as a Minolta product and not associated with any other brand or logo, AFAIK.

Regards,
Paul

Paul,

I don't mean to belabour the point, but I restate that the only "Leica body" that I'm aware of manufactured by or in cooperation with Minolta is/was the Leica/Minolta CL or CLE. It seems that Leica (Minolta) now has an M mount version of this camera; see the following link: http://www.cameraquest.com/leicacl.htm. This may be where the confusion lies...though I'm sure smaller parts and assemblies of the Leica M cameras are sub-contracted out, but final assembly is done at Leica, mostly in Solms, Germany.

 

[bjorke]

You buy a Leica so you can stop fretting about not having one.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You buy a Leica so you can stop fretting about not having one.

The best reason on earth. If you STILL can't get good pics, it's your problem, not the fact you dn't have a Leica. Go buy a Linhof/Alpa/Rollei...

 

[John Koehrer]

Paul,

Leica (Minolta) now has an M mount version of this camera; see the following link: http://www.cameraquest.com/leicacl.htm.

You do realize these haven't been made for years, right?
CL=72-81
CLE=81-84
They were both made by Minolta and the major differences were the CLE used OTF exposure measurement and had Aperture priority automation.
The M cameras were made in either Canada or Germany.
The SLR's although designed with Minolta were made in Portugal where they had some QC problems and returned production to Germany.
There were some SLR lenses also designed with Minolta but I'm not sure that they were produced anywhere but Germany. Yes, I am aware of the lenses for the CL made in Japan.

 

[Lee Shively]

Some previous poster mentioned they had owned an M6 and they were "underwhelmed". I understand. Some 20 odd years ago, I bought my first Leica and never took to it. It didn't feel right, it was clumsy to use and the rangefinder focusing was slow compared to an SLR. That was then. A few years back, I decided to give Leica a try again. 'Be damned if I didn't take to it like a duck to water. It felt right, it was intuitive to use and the rangefinder focusing was easy and precise (although I admit I'm very fond of autofocus). Obviously the camera didn't change over the years--I evolved into having different expectations and needs from my cameras. I'm very happy using Leicas these days.

 

[temujin]

to hell with it all, i'm just going to shoot everything on my holga from now on!