Godfrey
somewhat colored
I could care less whether my cameras have "a lasting collector's value". I care whether they are well made, serve well for a long period of time, and make fine photographs.
Anything made as a special edition in a limited series by a premium brand will have a collector's value in the future, whether it works or not ... whether it's obsolete or not. That's been shown to be true for decades. There's no reason to think that special edition Leica digital cameras are any different from all the other special edition products in that regard. Collectable valuation should even be thought about for at least 10 to 20 years after the item is no longer available new from the manufacturer, and then is dependent upon the specific unit's provenance.
G
uhoh7
Veteran
I'm just razzing you--sry. Always enjoy your strong defense of Leica choices at every level.
and TYG for Leica
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Some people do have problems distinguishing an explanation from a defense, I agree...
Emile de Leon
Well-known
I luv Leica..
I just don't luv shelling out that kind of cash for bodies..
Lenses yes...
But..bodies..no..
Who knows though..maybe the M10 will finally get me to buy a L digital..if they slim it down..
And put 4K in there..
I just don't luv shelling out that kind of cash for bodies..
Lenses yes...
But..bodies..no..
Who knows though..maybe the M10 will finally get me to buy a L digital..if they slim it down..
And put 4K in there..
vladimir
vladimir
Well said Michael, and is not with everything else, house where you live, car you drive, location you travel to, hotels you stay in, watch you wear, wine you drink, act…….camera you use.
jaredangle
Photojournalist
For those who are in Washington DC, I was in the ProPhoto shop on Pennsylvania Avenue yesterday afternoon looking for spare parts for one of my SLRs and they had a very nice looking black M7 for about $2,500. Might be worth a look!
Photog9000
Well-known
I cannot say I am "alienated" by Leica it is just out of my price range. I have to make do with what I can afford. I drive a Hyundai Sonata instead of a Rolls Royce for the same reason - it is what I can afford. Leica charges what the market will bear as does any producer of a product. You find your target market and price accordingly.
seany65
Well-known
Weren't Leica's R3 and R4 basically Minolta XD cameras but with different bodies?
I'm not quite old enough to remember, but weren't those Leica R's quite a bit dearer than the Minolta XD's?
If that's the case, can anyone say whether they thought the differences (the bodies, I suppose) were worth the extra?
Wasn't there a Leica 35-70mm lens that was made by someone else, but it had a leica body? I could be wrong on that, but was there a big difference in price?
I'm not quite old enough to remember, but weren't those Leica R's quite a bit dearer than the Minolta XD's?
If that's the case, can anyone say whether they thought the differences (the bodies, I suppose) were worth the extra?
Wasn't there a Leica 35-70mm lens that was made by someone else, but it had a leica body? I could be wrong on that, but was there a big difference in price?
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Yes, the R series up to the R8 was Minolta-based and Minolta supplied the body frame. Even the R8 and R9 show some Minolta DNA carry-over, despite being pure Leica developments.
However, in use the cameras were quite different from their Minolta counterparts, with better viewfinders, smoother handling, sophisticated exposure metering, etc.
And of course they were able to use that wonderful Leica R glass.
Early Leica zooms were adaptations of Minolta designs, as was the Fisheye Elmarit, originally built by Minolta. The 28-70 was Sigma-designed and built - allegedly to Leica specifications. To name but a few outsiders.
Actually, at the time Leica lens expertise was limited to rangefinder-type designs and they had to look far and wide to gain experience with specific SLR lenses. In the end they caught up and forged ahead, of course. The Leica R lens designs of the late 20th century are still mostly unsurpassed, although the SL zooms are as good or even better. (Not to mention the C lenses)
However, in use the cameras were quite different from their Minolta counterparts, with better viewfinders, smoother handling, sophisticated exposure metering, etc.
And of course they were able to use that wonderful Leica R glass.
Early Leica zooms were adaptations of Minolta designs, as was the Fisheye Elmarit, originally built by Minolta. The 28-70 was Sigma-designed and built - allegedly to Leica specifications. To name but a few outsiders.
Actually, at the time Leica lens expertise was limited to rangefinder-type designs and they had to look far and wide to gain experience with specific SLR lenses. In the end they caught up and forged ahead, of course. The Leica R lens designs of the late 20th century are still mostly unsurpassed, although the SL zooms are as good or even better. (Not to mention the C lenses
)seany65
Well-known
@jaapv, thanks for the info.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Look at the Minolta XD-5 or 7 and the Leica R5 and you'll see the links, and I do mean see...
I've owned both the XD-7 and the R5and they are both pleasant cameras to use.
Regards, David
Look at the Minolta XD-5 or 7 and the Leica R5 and you'll see the links, and I do mean see...
I've owned both the XD-7 and the R5and they are both pleasant cameras to use.
Regards, David
airfrogusmc
Veteran
In my mind set Leica is M. If I wanted an SLR in film days or a DSLR or typical mirrorless (digital) I would go with one of the other options but I love a true rangefinder and that, to me, is what Leica is.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Still here, still shooting with my Leicas, not alienated yet.
G
G
Daryl J.
Well-known
Thinking aloud here:
I wish they'd release the Leica If, IIf, & IIIg again.
I wish they'd release the Leica If, IIf, & IIIg again.
BlackXList
Well-known
OR, having a mostly captive market means you can charge what you like for a less than optimal product maybe?
Anyone going "well I've got one, two, several, and I take photos with them, so no they haven't alienated photographers" is completely missing the point of the question.
Do working photographers who rely on their gear to produce, and have to consider the value proposition of their gear reach for a Leica?
OR do they reach for Nikon/Canon/Sony, increasingly Fuji and for video increasingly Panasonic.
They're readily available, you can grab replacements when you need to the bigger companies have Professional Networks and provide back up and loaners for when equipment is in for repair, and do all they can to facilitate getting the job done.
Their products compete with each other performance wise and they're made to do innovative things (Like Sony dropping the MP count on some of the A7's to create class leading high ISO output).
Leica products simply aren't competitive against those products technically, their specs are usually a couple of years behind, there's seemingly very little support, and their habit of going "oh we'll have your camera for a couple of months, for a sensor replacement, no loaner" approach simply means they're not remotely a competitor, add in the prices, and it honestly becomes laughable.
So yes, they've absolutely alienated photographers, because they simply aren't a viable option.
They're smart in that knowing they can't hang with the big boys they push the luxury aspect of the brand, and are the only game in town for rangefinder shooting and they have their own niche.
When they start moving into areas like the Q and the SL then things get murkier.
I say this as someone who occasionally coverts a Q, but then finds myself thinking "I can have nearly 8 Ricoh GR IIs for that price, and honestly the difference in performance isn't THAT big"
(I'm fully aware that the Q is full frame and a faster lens, but it's nowhere remotely close to being 8 times the camera the GR is in terms of output)
They're simply not competitive.
If you like them or love them that's absolutely fine, I'm glad you have a tool that works well for you, and that you're enjoying it.
It's not a personal judgement on you at all.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Something I don't get: Why is "I don't want to /can't buy" synonymous with "being alienated" ?
If I were to be alienated by every product I don't like or can't/won't afford I would not have time for any other emotion...
If I were to be alienated by every product I don't like or can't/won't afford I would not have time for any other emotion...
Because secretly they want a Leica really badly and don't understand Leica's business model. However, if Leica tried to compete with everyone and was ubiquitous, their quality and uniqueness would suffer and people would no longer care about Leica.
Photog9000
Well-known
Would I like a Leica? Maybe yes, maybe no. Today I probably would IF I could afford it. But, for the work I used to do (newspapers), the SLR/DSLR system was the best option. Today, I use a couple of Fuji X-System bodies because they are what I can afford. Maybe one of these days I will go to LensRental and rent a Monochrom for a week with a 50mm Summicron just to see....
SaveKodak
Well-known
I think there is simply a duality that non-1% Leica users have to accept. Leica makes (some) cameras that nearly perfectly capture the idea of a tool that is both nostalgic and practical in a way that is very attractive to a certain type of person. At the same time, Leica has decided that their target market is the 'gadget' seeking 1%er for whom exclusivity is more important than pure functionality.
The fact is, Leica could have a DRF that is made overseas with a price target that is in line with a 5D4 or D810 if they wanted to. This would be a larger (not iPhone large, but maybe XPro2/RX1RII/A7RII large) market targeted camera and you could consider the premium in line with the Leica version of the LX100 (Aprx 35% more expensive. The M240 has an RF, but the digital technology is no more advanced than what you see in a Nikon D610, or Canon 6D, and in many ways worse, but still completely acceptable). Right now the M240 is well over double the price of the most popular professional cameras, the 5D4 and D810. In a world where Leica wanted as many people as possible to use their cameras they could have a camera that costs $1000 bucks more than a Canikon and people would call it expensive but it would be worth it to some. What Leica has done though, is decide that those people don't get to buy their cameras. It makes it very difficult to own a system for work, AND a Leica digital for personal projects and suited professional jobs. But Leica sees a world where only a special few elite get to use their cameras and lenses. In that way, yes, they have alienated many photographers, but they have not alienated their target market. There is another market of enthusiasts who simply deal with the expense, but I have a hard time believing that these people are making a living with their Leicas, or any other camera. Once you start being a camera-for-hire you have to make tougher choices because your rent depends on it.
What I find frustrating is that Leica could continue making certain ultra luxury items while at the same time making a camera for the rest of us. There is no reason why the M 262 needs to be made in germany and cost $5k, for example. That camera should be $3500 bucks and say "Designed by Leica, Germany". I would own one and I wouldn't even feel bad about it. My no B/S D750 money maker that I got refurbished for $1400 dollars pays the bills, but I wouldn't mind spending more for a new RF that I could use at weddings and not feel like I was choosing between a D5 (tool) and a toy.
The fact is, Leica could have a DRF that is made overseas with a price target that is in line with a 5D4 or D810 if they wanted to. This would be a larger (not iPhone large, but maybe XPro2/RX1RII/A7RII large) market targeted camera and you could consider the premium in line with the Leica version of the LX100 (Aprx 35% more expensive. The M240 has an RF, but the digital technology is no more advanced than what you see in a Nikon D610, or Canon 6D, and in many ways worse, but still completely acceptable). Right now the M240 is well over double the price of the most popular professional cameras, the 5D4 and D810. In a world where Leica wanted as many people as possible to use their cameras they could have a camera that costs $1000 bucks more than a Canikon and people would call it expensive but it would be worth it to some. What Leica has done though, is decide that those people don't get to buy their cameras. It makes it very difficult to own a system for work, AND a Leica digital for personal projects and suited professional jobs. But Leica sees a world where only a special few elite get to use their cameras and lenses. In that way, yes, they have alienated many photographers, but they have not alienated their target market. There is another market of enthusiasts who simply deal with the expense, but I have a hard time believing that these people are making a living with their Leicas, or any other camera. Once you start being a camera-for-hire you have to make tougher choices because your rent depends on it.
What I find frustrating is that Leica could continue making certain ultra luxury items while at the same time making a camera for the rest of us. There is no reason why the M 262 needs to be made in germany and cost $5k, for example. That camera should be $3500 bucks and say "Designed by Leica, Germany". I would own one and I wouldn't even feel bad about it. My no B/S D750 money maker that I got refurbished for $1400 dollars pays the bills, but I wouldn't mind spending more for a new RF that I could use at weddings and not feel like I was choosing between a D5 (tool) and a toy.
Michael Markey
Veteran
That seems to be the case .
Whats that Dylan line "anyone can fill their life up with things they can see but just cannot touch".
Whist I`m happy with my Leica film bodies I look elsewhere for digital .