Why LEICA M lenses are so expensive...'

[Sirius Glass]

https://www.photrio.com/forum/attachments/e43159ac-a45c-4c26-b3e6-b9c5abe850f0-jpeg.339618/

So you have a problem with things being a small size?

https://www.photrio.com/forum/attachments/26f57e96-ec00-4cb8-82b7-17f1e7d11ee7-jpeg.339619/

Shutter vibration is over rated. From another format:


Do not forget that SLRs do not have the famous parallax viewing problem along with the "viewing through the lens hood" issue that SLRs do not have either.

The rangefinder versus SLR debate was won in by SLRs in the 1960's and 1970's by the SLR sales, so do not bother to go there and get back on the topic before the moderator's blue type starts hacking away at the thread.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Shutter vibration? If you owned a real medium-format SLR and not a baby one like a Hassie, you'd understand. It's not so much the shutter itself as the mirror kick. Kinda like a long fall out of an airplane won't harm you, just the sudden stop at the end. Last nite I woke up to an earthquake, possibly up to 3-1/2 on the Richter scale. But real men carry and shoot Pentax 6X7's, and we all know the reason for the mirror lock-up feature, and how every time you otherwise trip the shutter of that camera, it's more like 6 on the Richter scale.

Hence my preference for 6X9 RF's when I can work within its lens limitations, devoid of a tele.

 

[faberryman]

There you have it. Why Leica M lenses are so expensive.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Shutter vibration? If you owned a real medium-format SLR and not a baby one like a Hassie, you'd understand. It's not so much the shutter itself as the mirror kick. Kinda like a long fall out of an airplane won't harm you, just the sudden stop at the end. Last nite I woke up to an earthquake, possibly up to 3-1/2 on the Richter scale. But real men carry and shoot Pentax 6X7's, and we all know the reason for the mirror lock-up feature, and how every time you otherwise trip the shutter of that camera, it's more like 6 on the Richter scale.

Hence my preference for 6X9 RF's when I can work within its lens limitations, devoid of a tele.

But don't 6x7 users need to wear a truss when they hand carry the 6x7?

 

[MattKing]

I think I'm going to start a church that worships Leicas.
And another church that declares Leicas to be the spawn of Satan.
That will enable us moderators to refer to our "no religion" rules when we shut down a thread like this!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ha Sirius! I have an oversized Domke shoulder bag replete with hip belt that I can fit each of my P67 lenses in, even the big 300EDIF, along with one body and all necessary accessories. It can all be carried that way for minor distances. But since it weighs 40 lbs full of all that stuff, I simply drop the whole thing into the top compartment of my big external frame backpack; and then it's easy and comfortable to carry long distances, and I won't walk bent over herniated and crooked like an Orangutan the rest of my life. Besides, that give me a nice workout weight impending summer backpacking season. Otherwise, I have a small Domke shoulder bag which can comfortably handle one body an one lens at a time, for more quickie outings, or else with a Fuji 6X9 RF in it.

The problem at the moment is the shifts in our coastal winds. One day it's cold and howling all day long, the next day calmer. Right now, I've got 8X10 gear in that big backpack, anticipating a calmer day. But if it stays windy, I'll put back in the 6X7 kit instead. As Mark Twain said, the coldest winter of his life was a summer in San Franciso. It's even worse where we are on the opposite side of the Bay, with the wind and fog coming through the Golden Gate aimed directly at a low gap in the ridge behind us - same wind current migrating raptors use.

 

[Nikon 2]

Nikon 2 - what is that posted illustration meant to imply? How to rig a jury? A compact fixed focal-length RF lens versus a huge SLR zoom one! How about a fair boxing match? There are plenty of SLR "pancake" lenses too, although once you get down to especially short focal focal lengths they need to be retrofocus design. What you're trying to do is make all rodents seem like they're as big as a capybara.

Well, I shouldn't place the blame on you personally, but on whoever attached that picture rather deceptively to their propagandistic article. They selectively cite the pros of RF's, but not the cons.
Your own web identity makes it obvious you're an SLR devotee.

The point of the picture was showing a rangefinder is easier to focus than a SLR. I had a Leica M3 and now a Nikon F2. For me it was much easier to focus the M3 resulting in a sharper image. It could be rangefinder systems show better sharpness because of being able to focus better and without the mirror vibration not so much the quality of the lens...!

Ah, Ken Rockwell.

Got salt...?

 

[snusmumriken]

I think I'm going to start a church that worships Leicas.
And another church that declares Leicas to be the spawn of Satan.
That will enable us moderators to refer to our "no religion" rules when we shut down a thread like this!

That’s a great idea! I’m an atheist.

 

[Nikon 2]

I think I'm going to start a church that worships Leicas.
And another church that declares Leicas to be the spawn of Satan.
That will enable us moderators to refer to our "no religion" rules when we shut down a thread like this!

I don’t like-a that...!

 

[Nikon 2]

The problem with rangefinder cameras is that they are harder to focus, the lenses are very expensive, and the cameras don't have matrix metering or autofocus. So not much use to me.

I don't recall but the Leica M comes with with a tripod, to utilize the lens resolution, right?

From my experience, owning an M3 and using a Nikon F2, the M3 was always easier to focus...!

 

[Nikon 2]

There you have it. Why Leica M lenses are so expensive.

Finally someone understands...!

 

[Thomas71]

They are so expensive because under darkroom enlarger you can't really distinguish negatives from Leica M, Nikon, Pentax, Zuiko, Zeiss...

 

[Pieter12]

RF cameras can be easier to focus and compose in low-light conditions no matter the speed of the lens. And they are usually lighter and sturdier than SLRs--fewer moving parts. On the other hand, the shutter curtain is susceptible to damage from exposure to strong sunlight (sitting on a surface with an uncapped lens facing up).

 

[250swb]

Using ISO 400 film means that one does not have to shoot with the lenses wide open as often.

This is true, in a sense, unless you missed the trend where many users of an f1.4 lens repeatedly state that they only use it wide open and that is why they bought it. Have you not followed any threads about bokeh, or what ND filter to use, if not then catch up. Demonstrating bokeh over and above making a good photograph is not something I like to do, but I do at the same time have my eyes open. But taking your advice for those people shooting at f1.4 at 400 ISO instead of 100 ISO means their shutter speeds aren't going to be fast enough so you've made it even worse for them.

 

[mshchem]

https://www.photrio.com/forum/attachments/e43159ac-a45c-4c26-b3e6-b9c5abe850f0-jpeg.339618/

So you have a problem with things being a small size?

https://www.photrio.com/forum/attachments/26f57e96-ec00-4cb8-82b7-17f1e7d11ee7-jpeg.339619/

Shutter vibration is over rated. From another format:


Do not forget that SLRs do not have the famous parallax viewing problem along with the "viewing through the lens hood" issue that SLRs do not have either.

The rangefinder versus SLR debate was won in by SLRs in the 1960's and 1970's by the SLR sales, so do not bother to go there and get back on the topic before the moderator's blue type starts hacking away at the thread.

Still think that the penny was glued on. Just not enough strength to keep a person from knocking it off.

I need to put this on my to do list. Probably use a motorized camera, electric release.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Why not just put slower film in it? Interestingly, Voigtlander is coming out with a 55/1.2 with an aspheric element and engineered to be used wide-open, with a 9-bladed aperture, Nikon F-mount, and a price less than $800. And it isn't an oversized lens. That might tempt Leica worshippers to switch religions.

As far as that penny trick goes, my brother did it all the time when demonstrating Rollei SL66 cameras and their shutter gentleness to potential customers. But heck, based on reading Mark Twain's story about the Calavaras jumping frog contest, I thought the whole point was to see who hop the furthest. So my Pentax 67 wins every time. Put a penny atop that, trip the shutter, and you'll need to look for that penny in the next county.

Parallax issues is what prevented my brother from using a Leica, because he did a lot of nature close-up. But he mostly gravitated to 4X5 film anyway, and later borrowed my P67, even though he had a couple of SL66 kits of his own. Liked the ergonomics and easier viewing through the Pentax better.

 

[Nikon 2]

Quality control of Nikon and why Nikon lenses doesn’t cost as much as Leica lenses...!

 

[Jim Jones]

I bought my first Leica in 1952 and my first Nikon in 1960. No Leica has ever failed except when a tripod leg capsized while on a car top platform, driving the camera into the ground. I've had a few Nikons fail in normal use. A Nikon with two zooms might weigh no more than my Leica M with 5 lenses from 21 to 135mm and a Weston Master 2 light meter, and would provide better macro photographs and more convenient light measuring. A 600mm Vivitar gives lots of reach. The Leica handles better. I can set the aperture and shutter without looking at the camera, and usually do an adequate job of zone focusing. Most Nikon equipment is designed and built well enough with a few notable exceptions. Leica design and construction is perhaps the best available. Nikon lenses can often be used on my current Nikon digital camera. I doubt if I can tell the difference in practical image quality between the two brands, but I never enlarge them beyond 16x20. As for the cost of Leica equipment, it is certainly less than the cost of the film I've used in it. If we want to argue about good and bad 35mm cameras, we ought to lump Nikon and Leica together, and compare them to Miranda and a few others like that.

 

[reddesert]

I think I'm going to start a church that worships Leicas.
And another church that declares Leicas to be the spawn of Satan.
That will enable us moderators to refer to our "no religion" rules when we shut down a thread like this!

Threads like this are useful so the bun-fight can be localized to a corner of the cafeteria.

 

[Radost]

I have many non AF SLR. NONE OF THEM ARE EASY TO FOCUS!!!!NONE!!!!
Range finder is instant and 100% accurate.

Canon AE1 A1
Minolta X700 XD11 SRT101
Olympus OM1
Pentax superME
Konica AutoReflex TC and FC1
Nikon F3

None of them are easy to focus especially when it is a little darker.

 

[Radost]

AF focus “with back button focus“ focus very well and fast. Faster than Range finders.
Some times they miss but the fast focus is worth it.

 

[hsvdg]

I got my first Leica a few weeks ago (an M5), just to understand what the prices are all about. I absolutely prefer my OM 3 to the Leica M5. However, I now see the lens availability for the M system is great, much better than anything they have for Olympus. So, there you have a reason. I still struggle to see the advantages of rangefinders though. Size perhaps, but otherwise, any arguments that I have seen seem irrelevant.

BTW: The Leica broke after 1 roll of film and is now in repair. :-(

 

[Radost]

I got my first Leica a few weeks ago (an M5), just to understand what the prices are all about. I absolutely prefer my OM 3 to the Leica M5. However, I now see the lens availability for the M system is great, much better than anything they have for Olympus. So, there you have a reason. I still struggle to see the advantages of rangefinders though. Size perhaps, but otherwise, any arguments that I have seen seem irrelevant.

BTW: The Leica broke after 1 roll of film and is now in repair. :-(

Ha. The Japanese make better sturdier cameras.

 

[Nikon 2]

Ha. The Japanese make better sturdier cameras.

The rangefinder cameras are more delicate by design than the SLR counterparts…!

 

[guangong]

I use the Hasselblad for my serious work that I will save and make prints, some of them large while 35mm is for very light traveling and long lenses for wildlife.

Historically, you have it backwards. The larger formats were the entry level formats (roll film). While Leitz and Zeiss introduced 35mm photography as practical, it was really after WWII that 35mm photography (until then 35mm was called miniature photography) took off with higher quality lenses, etc. A plethora of books then appeared illustrating how to cultivate the new techniques necessary for using 35mm cameras in creative photography. In a way, 35mm requires greater technical skill. As for myself, in addition to 35mm, I use 66, 67, and 45...opps! Also Minox and Minolta 16. It all depends.