Why Buy a Leica?

As mentioned by others, the camera is only a tool. Like all tools there are various degrees of quality depending on the intended use. Professional quality tools are made for heavy use and are expected to last for years. Lesser quality tools are not. Use of a higher quality of tool does not in any way guarantee professional results. I've used many tools in my life as a carpenter and mechanic and can say that my cheap tools have often gotten the job done, but often with more effort and mishap. A cheap wrench failing under extra stress resulting in a damaged hand and a useless wrench is an example.
Now, my experience with Bessas of which I own four, they are good tools but not the best tools. I use them more gently than my 50 year old Canon P because I know they are not built to the same standard. 3 out of 4 of my Bessas have at least one loose strap lug. 3 out of 4 have needed to have the rangefinder realigned because it banged into something harder than my belly. One that recently was sold is being returned because it couldn't handle the rigor of trans-atlantic trip when wrapped 4 inches thick with bubble wrap. Horses for courses, indeed. These cams are not up to my standards. I want to use the tool and not have to think about being careful not to wind too quickly near the end of the roll because it may jam the shutter or letting it rap against anything stiffer than a cushion. I'll get the broken one repaired and all four will be sold to buy a Leica (or two). My pictures won't be any different, but I expect to be taking more pictures for a longer time.

stesm said:

As mentioned by others, the camera is only a tool. Like all tools there are various degrees of quality depending on the intended use. Professional quality tools are made for heavy use and are expected to last for years. Lesser quality tools are not. Use of a higher quality of tool does not in any way guarantee professional results. I've used many tools in my life as a carpenter and mechanic and can say that my cheap tools have often gotten the job done, but often with more effort and mishap. A cheap wrench failing under extra stress resulting in a damaged hand and a useless wrench is an example.
Now, my experience with Bessas of which I own four, they are good tools but not the best tools. I use them more gently than my 50 year old Canon P because I know they are not built to the same standard. 3 out of 4 of my Bessas have at least one loose strap lug. 3 out of 4 have needed to have the rangefinder realigned because it banged into something harder than my belly. One that recently was sold is being returned because it couldn't handle the rigor of trans-atlantic trip when wrapped 4 inches thick with bubble wrap. Horses for courses, indeed. These cams are not up to my standards. I want to use the tool and not have to think about being careful not to wind too quickly near the end of the roll because it may jam the shutter or letting it rap against anything stiffer than a cushion. I'll get the broken one repaired and all four will be sold to buy a Leica (or two). My pictures won't be any different, but I expect to be taking more pictures for a longer time.

Click to expand...

The above just about answers the question "Why buy a Leica?" for me too. I grew up with Leica (I've owned about 25 Leicas and Bessas). Around 12 years ago, I had a very expensive (£400) service carried out on an M3 by Leica UK which was done so badly (camera returned 3 times and still not right) that I abandoned the marque in disgust.

When Bessas came along, I was attracted to the idea of buying a new well-specified Leica-type camera (including aperture-priority auto-exposure) at a reasonable price. I still feel the Bessa L is spectacularly good value as a special wide-angle camera. However, when I bought my first Bessa with a rangefinder (a T), I had the "rangefinder misalignment after surprisingly light impact" problem that others have had too. I did then go on to buy two Bessa R2a models, since I am trying to assemble a lightweight outfit for my aged bones to carry, but very soon I became convinced that these would not prove durable and have sold them both and bought two Leica M2s, in which I have much more confidence. It also helps that I have now found an independent repair service (Newton Ellis of Liverpool) which is good and charges much less than Leica UK. Different folks have different reasons for buying Leicas, some are just snobs, but for me it's simply the high engineering quality which translates into long-term dependability.

Regards,

David

When I was young I could not afford a Leica. I read Pop Photo and Modern Photography tests in the 60s and 70s and found that Minolta optics tested high with better edge performance than Leica. I bought Minolta and was happy. Now I enjoy a limited Leica experience with one Mandler lens and a M-Rokkor 40mm. I find pleasure in using a small finely made machine vs any noticed optical results. I dare say a Rokkor 58mm f/1.4 or 1.2 has as much character as the older 50mm Summilux. Heck, my Rollei TLR f/2.8 makes more interesting B&W rounded images than the Leica.

So, I tell myself I had the Leica experience and should let another photographer enjoy the MP. So far I can't do it.

Roger Hicks said:

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

Click to expand...

I don't think that "mystique" is determined by "stratosphere". There Is a "Holga Mystique", a "Cave drawing done with the charcoal from a charred stick mystique..."

Just what Is "Mystique"? Truthfully, I don't know. Something of a mysterious, mystical, magical ...

Then again, I can't think of any pistol for which I'd trade my .45 Colt National Match,....

Click to expand...

Oh, no. I won't let myself be drawn "off topic" by the lure of discussing my mid-1941 SuperGrade Winchester Model 70 with classic Lyman aperture sights; or my 1935 Colt ACE (first model) or ... or ... my A.H. Fox (Philadelphia) ....
Nope. Won't happen ... :rolleyes:

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!

Click to expand...

I won't argue this, because I can't think of a way. I don't think the idea of "mystique" is absolute - but it may certainly be relevant.

It is true ... although it is probably not necessary for a Master Carpenter to use a top-of-the-line hammer, more likely than not, he ... uh s/he ... WILL. That is something above and beyond "necessity". Some hammers, some cameras, some Fly Rods will "sing" in the hands of those using them - far more than others.

Why? I don't know -- maybe something to do with "mystique"?

Buy a Mamiya 6 and the only 3 lenses made for it. The quality of these symmetrical lenses will give Leitz a serious run for the money. Firstly, the system is a rangefinder, square format, outstanding optics, quiet shutter, and BIG NEGS. The best of all worlds.

I've had no issues with mine, and I would never trade it for the world.

mamiyaII

Andrew-just plunked down my monet on a new mamiyaII body; bought the 80mm
lens used from Keh and man am I having some fun. for me the experience is very
interesting as this was a move from a non anything TLR. but as far as the money goes one would be hard presses to find something better than a model 6 with the lenses...oh yes I did own a leica once. an m5 which was stolen...slrs are more fun....more intuitive and faster as far as I'm concerned
Best,Peter

I bought a Leica IIIb from an ebay seller two weeks ago. I wanted to see what all the foofarah was about.

Peter, I think your purchase was a good one. I too like an SLR for reasons of controlling verticals and keystoning. The Mamiya 6 and likely 7 is not real intuitive in that regard as the viewfinder does distort the views. Hence my reason for my reliance on a Blad for that type of work.

You will be blown away with the quality of the Mamiya 7 lens system.

Ed Sukach said:

I don't think that "mystique" is determined by "stratosphere". There Is a "Holga Mystique", a "Cave drawing done with the charcoal from a charred stick mystique..."

Click to expand...

Fair enough, and I won't argue. All I'll add is that many who buy 'mystique', be it Leica or Holga, are buying it because they think they ought to. They never really 'get it' but they go along for the ride. I'd be interested to know how many are disappointed by either (or both) and what percentage of those disappointed have the balls to say so.

On second thoughts, I'll also say that very few people have ever tried a camera as bloody awful as a Holga, even though they could easily afford to. I tried Dianas before they were fashionable, and I really can't see why anyone would prefer one to a Lyubitel, which has the additional mystique of being genuinely cheap (instead of having its price inflated by the mystique) as well as being an infinitely better basic camera.

Don't know much about mystique - dabbling in that can get you committed.
I like Leica and Lexus and find both hard to beat.
Mark

Mark Layne said:

Don't know much about mystique - dabbling in that can get you committed.
I like Leica and Lexus and find both hard to beat.
Mark

Click to expand...

Dear Mark,

That's what it comes down to. An hour or two ago I listened to a BBC World Service programme about brands. I found most of it hard to believe: they equated 'brand' and 'overpriced'.

To me, there's an enormous difference between buying a camera with a record of 80+ years evidence of good service; long used by far better photographers than I; still made by craftsmen (and women -- I've been to the factory); and, on the other hand, buying 'designer' clothes where I'm paying for the signature of some transient 'celebrity' on goods made in a Chinese sweatshop...

Too many people assume that by sticking a famous name on something, you can transform it. You can't. It's known, I believe, as 'brand dilution'. But anyone who sees M-series Leicas as a diluted product has fairly little knowledge of either engineering or branding.

Cheers,

Roger

While I believe my original answer was concise and sufficient, I admit that the if you don't get it, you don't get it kind of answer is a little unfair. Here's another version of "Why Leica?" if you haven't seen it yet...

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/09/24/070924fa_fact_lane

Take care,
Tom

Printed next to Piaget, Louis Vuitton, and Cadillac ads, yup.

I've compared shots between my Canon P w/Canon lens and Leica IIIf w/Leica lens and there isn't much difference (I've even swapped lenses and still found not much difference.)

My advice would be to try one out for yourself. Hold it, play with it (and possibly love it? ) and see if it does anything for you. Maybe it's for you, maybe it isn't.

As for high price, I think snobbery plays a roll. I've met/seen more than a few people who've sniffed and said "Eh! It's not a Leica." Like Nikon people looking down at Canon, Rolex people looking down on Omega, Mac users looking down on PCs, etc. etc.

Sure Leicas are excellent cameras, but for example I've heard of a 15mm lens going for ¥500,000 which is close to $4000. The Voitlander equivalent is less than ¥100,000 ($1000.) Why should I shell out for the Leica one?

A major problem for photographers is the collectable nature of Leica cameras and lenses. This keeps the new and second hand value artificially high compared to many other makes.

However the build quality and superb servicing by Leitz means a Leica will substantially outlast the vast majority of its competitors. If you buy second hand from a Leitz dealer it is possible to get excellent equipment at reasonable prices.

You have to use a Leica M yourself to appreciate the image quality and benefits of these cameras. Roger is right to champion these cameras.

Ian

Ian Grant said:

A major problem for photographers is the collectable nature of Leica cameras and lenses. This keeps the new and second hand value artificially high compared to many other makes.

Click to expand...

Dear Ian,

I'm not entirely convinced of this. Older 'cooking' or 'user' bodies are very common indeed, especially IIIa, IIIc, M2, M3, M4 in its various guises and M6. The same goes for many lenses, especially 50mm and 90mm.

Yes, you can argue that the price of the rarities drags up the price of the common stuff, but I'd equally argue that the price of some of the rarities reflects their usefulness to photographers: if I could possibly afford one, I'd buy a 90/2.2 Thambar, for example. Bits that are both common and of little use do indeed sell for next to nothing, such as the filmstrip maker ELDIA. You might say that without the magic Leitz logo it would be worth even less, and you'd be right; but I really don't believe that collectors drive up the price of the vast majority of older, usable Leicas. For that matter, Visoflexes are ridiculously cheap too.

I'm absolutely sure that there is no 'collector premium' built into the price of new M-series Leicas, except the 'funnies' with titanium bodywork or silly engravings (most of which are commissioned by dealers or individuals as batches, not factory-originated) -- and personally, I'm very grateful to the collectors for helping keep Leica in business. Leica's own estimate is that without the collectors, there have been times when they would have gone even closer to going under. As they say, there aren't that many collectors, but if it's even 10 per cent, that's a very welcome number of extra sales.

Having watched Ms and lenses being manufactured, I'm surprised they don't cost more: there's so much hand-assembly and high-tech inspection at every stage that it would not be possible to sell them for significantly less and still stay in business. Right now, fortunately, Leica are doing very nicely indeed.

As for other brands of RF cameras vs. Leicas, I've owned many of them and used probably the majority of the rest. The Canon 7 is a lovely camera, for example, with (from memory) multiple brightlines, but it doesn't make sense to compare it to a screw Leica (which is much more compact): rather, it's a more limited M. Where the cameras are more similar (older Canons, original Zorkii/Fed) the Leica is better made and more reparable.

As remarked in others' posts above, you may not see much difference in the results when comparing two 50-year-old cameras -- but put some modern glass on the front of a modern RF (not just Leica), and in return for the trade-off of bigger, heavier cameras and lenses, well, I certainly see a difference, and I own or have owned many lenses, of many marques, from the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s.

Cheers,

Roger

Suggestion to anyone who wants to prove they're not a snob - buy a Voigtländer Vito (or Retina, although Vito are deeply unfashionable and thus much cheaper). Great lenses, nice big viewfinder, not hard to find an upmarket model with a rangefinder and meter for around £25 or less!

Roger Hicks said:

I'm not entirely convinced of this. Older 'cooking' or 'user' bodies are very common indeed, especially IIIa, IIIc, M2, M3, M4 in its various guises and M6. The same goes for many lenses, especially 50mm and 90mm.

Click to expand...

Roger, I should have qualified my post by stating the same, when I bought my M3 I asked the dealer for an excellent user, stating I wasn't too concerned about its looks, same with my lenses.

At the time I was buying the Leica collectors market was at a peak and I have to agree that in real terms Leica cameras and lenses have now become far more affordable even new. (Well in Europe anyway).

Ian

Ian Grant said:

Roger, I should have qualified my post by stating the same, when I bought my M3 I asked the dealer for an excellent user, stating I wasn't too concerned about its looks, same with my lenses.

Click to expand...

Dear Ian,

Very true! I suspect that my ratty M4-P, owned from new (25+ years) is probably worth a quarter as much to a collector as a mint one -- if he'd be prepared to look at it at all!

Cheers,

Roger

New Yorker article

I've used Nikons and now Linhofs for 30+ years without giving a thought to Leicas, but I must say that the New Yorker article previously mentioned has made me aware of the Leica mystique. I now want to find a mint early model to cherish and caress.

I've been watching this thread and finally need to add my 2 cents. I recently bought an M6, a 50mm Dual Range and a 90mm 2.8. The M6 cost roughly the same as a decent digital SLR. Each lens cost about the same as a good, new prime of the same focal length....granted, this is a comparison of used vs new, but I'd bet a large sum of money that these bits will be around a lot longer (and repairable for a lot longer) than thier Canon/Nikon autofocus brothers. In my mind, that makes the used Leica equipment a long term, cost effective option.

That said, I did not get a Leica 35mm lens because the cost was so much higher than the 50 or 90mm....so I got the Voigtlander. It is a fine lens and it too will probably outlast an autofocus prime.

Sooner or later I'm going to break down and sell my M7 - it's nice, but I've never fallen in love. Shooting with it isn't that different from shooting with my R2A - the Bessa is a little 'crunchier' in sound, but the smoothness of winding doesn't really effect me.

I'd like to find a right pretty M4-2 (or M4-P) as a replacement - Tri-X and sunny/16 all the way.

Every time I've considered it, I've come to the conclusion that it's too much money for such a small piece of film.

If I were to start all over again in RF - I would buy either a Cosina R3 or a made-by-Cosina new Zeiss Ikon and then blow the budget on Leitz glass!

The camera is just a light-tight focal plane with a film advance lever.

The picture is in the glass.

copake_ham said:

The camera is just a light-tight focal plane with a film advance lever.

Click to expand...

And ... accurate register between the lens and focal plane. And ... a shutter that operates smoothly and quietly with minimum vibration and reliably for thousands of exposures in all temperatures (same for wind mechanism). And .. a focusing device that is accurate and easy to use in bad light. If these requirements are not met, the choice of lens is irrelevant - every lens will deliver lousy results!