If google was truly what it's supposed to be, a search engine and not a marketing tool, it would be very easy to find. For now I'm relying on my memory. You don't have to believe me.
FF was "impossible" because if the retro focus design combined with the angle of the light. That was one of their reasons. Of course, the forum discussions about that BS were raging.
goamules
Well-known
Just as I wouldn't buy a Ferrari, but enjoy my Mazda Miata instead, I would never buy a new Leica. Instead, I bought a new Fuji XE-1. The argument that "if you want a digital rangefinder....if you want FF in M mount...you have to go Leica" is pretty self serving. If I wanted an Italian rear engined sports car, yeah, I'd have to buy the Ferrari. But I don't have to have those things. I have to take good photos, and comparing how I do it with a $500 Fuji or a $5,000 Leica would reveal little difference. It's the photo. Not the "experience".
I shoot a couple very old Leicas, because I like old school engineering, only. Those 60 year old cameras are cheap enough I don't mind. But not anything made today.
I shoot a couple very old Leicas, because I like old school engineering, only. Those 60 year old cameras are cheap enough I don't mind. But not anything made today.
giganova
Well-known
I think the OP starts with a wrong premise. Just check original prices and use an inflation calculator. A Leica M3 in 1954 cost the same as an M4 in 1966, an M5 in 1971, an M6 in 1984 ... around $3,500 to 3,750 in today's 2015 Dollar. Maybe that's 20-30% less than a Leica body today.
When I was a student in 1983 I worked for 4 months and could barely afford a Leica with one of their cheapest lenses. If a student today works as a Starbucks barista for 4 months, the student will make $6,400 which would give him/her an M7 with a cheap (maybe slightly used) lens.
The slight increase compared to "yesteryear" could be explained by 1) Leica having to operate their own stores because almost all camera stores have disappeared, 2) expensive production and labor costs, 3) small production runs, and 4) Leica is fully exploiting their niche market situation, catering to people who don't need but want to own a Leica. That was different in the 40-60s when there wasn't much choice when you wanted to buy a decent camera. Even Cartier Bresson said that the bought a Leica because there wasn't much choice and he admitted that all he could afford was one body and one lens for a long time.
What alienates me are not the prices but their ridiculous special edition models, like the Hermes M9 which was a slap in the face for every serious photographer. On the other hand, they make some of the finest cinema lenses for film makers and do seem to care about professionals.
Instead of bashing Leica, we should appreciate their amazing mechanical devices, acknowledge that they do what they seem to think is best to keep them afloat, which is no easy task in today's throwaway society and overabundance of cheap electronic gadgets. Also, how many companies have three film (!) cameras in their current catalog, have free photo exhibitions in their stores, organize juried exhibitions, publish printed photo books, a fine magazine, and host workshops and photography events right in the middle of your community? Name one other camera manufacturer who does that!
I find it funny that so many photographers complain about Leica's high prices. Have you ever heard a bird watcher saying that he is alienated and offended by the high prices of Leica or Zeiss binoculars? Of course not, they either buy one or they don't and move along without whining about it.
When I was a student in 1983 I worked for 4 months and could barely afford a Leica with one of their cheapest lenses. If a student today works as a Starbucks barista for 4 months, the student will make $6,400 which would give him/her an M7 with a cheap (maybe slightly used) lens.
The slight increase compared to "yesteryear" could be explained by 1) Leica having to operate their own stores because almost all camera stores have disappeared, 2) expensive production and labor costs, 3) small production runs, and 4) Leica is fully exploiting their niche market situation, catering to people who don't need but want to own a Leica. That was different in the 40-60s when there wasn't much choice when you wanted to buy a decent camera. Even Cartier Bresson said that the bought a Leica because there wasn't much choice and he admitted that all he could afford was one body and one lens for a long time.
What alienates me are not the prices but their ridiculous special edition models, like the Hermes M9 which was a slap in the face for every serious photographer. On the other hand, they make some of the finest cinema lenses for film makers and do seem to care about professionals.
Instead of bashing Leica, we should appreciate their amazing mechanical devices, acknowledge that they do what they seem to think is best to keep them afloat, which is no easy task in today's throwaway society and overabundance of cheap electronic gadgets. Also, how many companies have three film (!) cameras in their current catalog, have free photo exhibitions in their stores, organize juried exhibitions, publish printed photo books, a fine magazine, and host workshops and photography events right in the middle of your community? Name one other camera manufacturer who does that!
I find it funny that so many photographers complain about Leica's high prices. Have you ever heard a bird watcher saying that he is alienated and offended by the high prices of Leica or Zeiss binoculars? Of course not, they either buy one or they don't and move along without whining about it.
f16sunshine
Moderator
They surely have attraced many new photographers.
It's always the younger folks that stop me and ask if the camera I'm carrying is a Leica (even when it's often a Fuji x100 ).
The brand has awareness for sure. The stores sure help. Leica store Bellevue Square is Faces the apple Store in the Plush Bellevue square Mall.
I'm sure at least a few young photographers pop in there while their GF's and BF's shop.
I've adopted AF for projects that must deliver results. The Fujis are pretty handy beating out the M's I used to carry and the 5D's.
Leica's prices are too high for me but it's not the price as much as what the price brings with it.
The product is premium but the reliability has not been (digital M's ).
I'm very curious about the mirrorless models Leica is bringing.
Technology is mature enough with digital imaging that I could see using a model for a very long time now.
Not like a few years ago where there was hope for a bit cleaner results in low light.
Now we are at a very good quality level.
If Leica brought a few fixed lens models in different focal lengths, I could see making a 10 year investment and go with them until they were beyond service.
my 2c
It's always the younger folks that stop me and ask if the camera I'm carrying is a Leica (even when it's often a Fuji x100
).The brand has awareness for sure. The stores sure help. Leica store Bellevue Square is Faces the apple Store in the Plush Bellevue square Mall.
I'm sure at least a few young photographers pop in there while their GF's and BF's shop.
I've adopted AF for projects that must deliver results. The Fujis are pretty handy beating out the M's I used to carry and the 5D's.
Leica's prices are too high for me but it's not the price as much as what the price brings with it.
The product is premium but the reliability has not been (digital M's ).
I'm very curious about the mirrorless models Leica is bringing.
Technology is mature enough with digital imaging that I could see using a model for a very long time now.
Not like a few years ago where there was hope for a bit cleaner results in low light.
Now we are at a very good quality level.
If Leica brought a few fixed lens models in different focal lengths, I could see making a 10 year investment and go with them until they were beyond service.
my 2c
uhoh7
Veteran
"Self-serving"? Ouch!!!
I can't buy new Leicas either, but I love M and LTM glass and hate auto-focus. Fuji is not in the picture for me. I did note that A7.mod is viable alternative with cost of used body and mod about 1100.
If Leica was priced like Ferrari.....well I think they call that line the S007. Thank god it's too big for me.
To me fuji is toyota. Leica m9 is mini-cooper.
I do own a toyota, but my daily driver is mini.
The mehyota has it's uses:
Listo by unoh7, on Flickr
and both of those devices cost alot more than a good used Leica M digital.
The last war..."Leica is too expensive" is over. But I'm sure many will fight it forever.
and anyway, I thought all photographers were alienated.
thompsonks
Well-known
Leica has lost me. I never minded the prices, it's the obsolescence. The investment used to last decades, but now they 'last' just a few years.
I owned M2, M3, and M4 from 1973 to the turn of the century, and then I stopped carrying a meter and bought a used M6 from a friend. That's 25 or so years on each mechanical body, and an overhaul for each one every 10-15 years.
Since acquiring an M8 in 2008, I've owned 6 digital Leicas. Though I like the feel of them, they're never very up-to-date in their electronics. I've stayed with them mainly to keep using the lenses. And I've had more defects/repairs on the digital bodies in seven years than on film bodies in 35 years.
I still have an MM and M-E, and probably will keep one of them a long time. But mostly I use WATE and MATE on Sony bodies. I can't see buying a Leica body again.
Kirk
I owned M2, M3, and M4 from 1973 to the turn of the century, and then I stopped carrying a meter and bought a used M6 from a friend. That's 25 or so years on each mechanical body, and an overhaul for each one every 10-15 years.
Since acquiring an M8 in 2008, I've owned 6 digital Leicas. Though I like the feel of them, they're never very up-to-date in their electronics. I've stayed with them mainly to keep using the lenses. And I've had more defects/repairs on the digital bodies in seven years than on film bodies in 35 years.
I still have an MM and M-E, and probably will keep one of them a long time. But mostly I use WATE and MATE on Sony bodies. I can't see buying a Leica body again.
Kirk
f16sunshine
Moderator
S007. Thank god it's too big for me.
To me fuji is toyota. Leica m9 is mini-cooper.
Yeah Toyota! I love me some Toyota
The M5 is my favorite Leica I've owned. The M5 (bmw) was my favorite Car I owned also but... I sold it when I got my lowly toyota SR5 pick up!
Just was not driving it anymore. Too much access.
I guess people change yeah ?
PS. Always enjoy seeing your images of Idaho Charlie
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I don't mind about special models, although I would never buy one (although I regret never getting a M6J set when they were affordable). It is very much a tradition with the brand, the first ones were the Leica "Luxus" gold plated, lizard and snake skinned ones, 100 pieces each in the early 1930ies.I think the OP starts with a wrong premise. Just check original prices and use an inflation calculator. A Leica M3 in 1954 cost the same as an M4 in 1966, an M5 in 1971, an M6 in 1984 ... around $3,500 to 3,750 in today's 2015 Dollar. Maybe that's 20-30% less than a Leica body today.
When I was a student in 1983 I worked for 4 months and could barely afford a Leica with one of their cheapest lenses. If a student today works as a Starbucks barista for 4 months, the student will make $6,400 which would give him/her an M7 with a cheap (maybe slightly used) lens.
The slight increase compared to "yesteryear" could be explained by 1) Leica having to operate their own stores because almost all camera stores have disappeared, 2) expensive production and labor costs, 3) small production runs, and 4) Leica is fully exploiting their niche market situation, catering to people who don't need but want to own a Leica. That was different in the 40-60s when there wasn't much choice when you wanted to buy a decent camera. Even Cartier Bresson said that the bought a Leica because there wasn't much choice and he admitted that all he could afford was one body and one lens for a long time.
What alienates me are not the prices but their ridiculous special edition models, like the Hermes M9 which was a slap in the face for every serious photographer. On the other hand, they make some of the finest cinema lenses for film makers and do seem to care about professionals.
Instead of bashing Leica, we should appreciate their amazing mechanical devices, acknowledge that they do what they seem to think is best to keep them afloat, which is no easy task in today's throwaway society and overabundance of cheap electronic gadgets. Also, how many companies have three film (!) cameras in their current catalog, have free photo exhibitions in their stores, organize juried exhibitions, publish printed photo books, a fine magazine, and host workshops and photography events right in the middle of your community? Name one other camera manufacturer who does that!
I find it funny that so many photographers complain about Leica's high prices. Have you ever heard a bird watcher saying that he is alienated and offended by the high prices of Leica or Zeiss binoculars? Of course not, they either buy one or they don't and move along without whining about it.
I don't quite see why they would give up tradition when it brings in extra money or is good for marketing.
Like the presentation copies for celebrities and famous photographers do.
Lss
Well-known
I personally have a hard time relating to this way of thinking. Leica cameras and lenses have been expensive the whole time I have had interest in them, and it pays no role to me what others have used and what they may have paid.
Leica remains relevant to photographers as long as they build products that provide advantages against competition. If a competitor truly provides the same or better at a lower price point, it seems like the way to go. Leica has been in that boat for a long time. It's anyway a sad fact for many of us that they are expensive products.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I have and use a number of Leica film cameras and lenses. I doubt I'll be buying any more Leica digital, with possible exception of an M9. The prices for the rest of it are completely absurd.
Actually I get really good shots with my Fuji X10, X20, X100. And if want to use extreme wide angle lenses or telephoto, or PC lenses, that's what my D700 is for. I don't know that I do any better with my M8.2.
Actually I get really good shots with my Fuji X10, X20, X100. And if want to use extreme wide angle lenses or telephoto, or PC lenses, that's what my D700 is for. I don't know that I do any better with my M8.2.
KM-25
Well-known
New Leica gear? Nah, no need to spend that kind of green to get into Leica, heck even that silly sale that was supposed to end in May is still on.
Now prices in the used market for Leica have come down a lot, some lenses down to pre-M9 announcement levels. So when I noticed how much the stuff had dropped, I decided to expand past my M3 / 50 combo and build a nice kit I could use for several clients who would appreciate the style of images I could make with the gear. So for not a lot of dough I added a customized M6TTL, clean M240, 28 elmarit asph and 35mm 1.4 FLE to the mix.
Bam!
Big difference in certain kinds of image making, clients love the resulting work, I love the workflow and that nice used M240 I bought in June has seen close to 18,000 faultless clicks through it in my hands.
It's pretty simple, you learn about Leica, you learn what it used to cost, what it now costs and what it could end up costing in the long run and you make your choices.
I'm not going to be one of those folks who can't wait to see what replaces the M240 or just keeps buying lens after lens for it. I have a real simple three lens approach that I love using and find the 240 to be a really solid camera that looks like it will continue to hold up.
I use other cameras in my work but I see no reason to not use Leica if I can afford it and love the images I get from the experience of using it. To me Leica is worth it, especially used.
Now prices in the used market for Leica have come down a lot, some lenses down to pre-M9 announcement levels. So when I noticed how much the stuff had dropped, I decided to expand past my M3 / 50 combo and build a nice kit I could use for several clients who would appreciate the style of images I could make with the gear. So for not a lot of dough I added a customized M6TTL, clean M240, 28 elmarit asph and 35mm 1.4 FLE to the mix.
Bam!
Big difference in certain kinds of image making, clients love the resulting work, I love the workflow and that nice used M240 I bought in June has seen close to 18,000 faultless clicks through it in my hands.
It's pretty simple, you learn about Leica, you learn what it used to cost, what it now costs and what it could end up costing in the long run and you make your choices.
I'm not going to be one of those folks who can't wait to see what replaces the M240 or just keeps buying lens after lens for it. I have a real simple three lens approach that I love using and find the 240 to be a really solid camera that looks like it will continue to hold up.
I use other cameras in my work but I see no reason to not use Leica if I can afford it and love the images I get from the experience of using it. To me Leica is worth it, especially used.
DominikDUK
Well-known
Didn't the only real competitor for the Leica market just give up a few days ago.
One may like or dislike the Leica Management and pricing policy but they do seem to be right otherwise they would already be history. Leica always and will be a luxury good, pro cameras no matter the mfg are at a premium and so are the lenses.
One may like or dislike the Leica Management and pricing policy but they do seem to be right otherwise they would already be history. Leica always and will be a luxury good, pro cameras no matter the mfg are at a premium and so are the lenses.
John E Earley
Tuol Sleng S21-0174
This year I bought a 58 year old M3 that was in very nice if used condition for $600. I wonder how an M9/240/MM will fare in 58 years?
newsgrunt
Well-known
Roger Hicks
Veteran
"Has Leica alienated photographers"
As the company appears to be doing quite well at the moment, the only easy way to get a "yes" answer is to restrict "photographers" to "people of whom I approve".
Cheers,
R.
As the company appears to be doing quite well at the moment, the only easy way to get a "yes" answer is to restrict "photographers" to "people of whom I approve".
Cheers,
R.
Niche product catering to a niche crowd made in small quantities. That type of product is always going to be expensive compared to a mass produced consumer product made in large quantities. Catering to a luxury crowd is just smart at this point... it's about selling cameras to those who can afford them, not those who will use them "right."
DominikDUK
Well-known
+1 to jsrockit
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'm sure Leica have alienated less people than Hasselblad did with those re-badged wooden handled abominations they bought out a while ago!
Michael Markey
Veteran
I don`t think Leica has alienated people.
Still selling plenty of cameras and compared to the cost of other pastimes the cost of a Leica is very reasonable.
Yes ,you can buy cheaper cameras ... so buy them and stop worrying about the price of Leica.
Still selling plenty of cameras and compared to the cost of other pastimes the cost of a Leica is very reasonable.
Yes ,you can buy cheaper cameras ... so buy them and stop worrying about the price of Leica.