Has Leica alienated photographers?

[RichC]

That someone feels a sense of alienation because they cannot afford a (luxury) item indicates a degree of entitlement (and envy) I do not understand. A Leica is far removed from the necessities of life...

Hear, hear.

At the end of the day, not being able to easily afford a Leica could not be anything other than the very definition of a first world "problem."

Or that perhaps we think the product is poor, unreliable and not fit for purpose - and grossly overpriced for those reasons. Especially considering it betrays its history, when it was made to be an effective and reliable camera rather than an unreliable, gaudy bauble*. Nothing to do with affordability...

(*As evidenced by pointless design features that add expense: brass components outclassed by modern materials, a sensor that’s always 2 generations or more behind everyone else, and the ridiculous removable base preventing you from changing the battery or SD card if using a tripod - I could go on...! I bought a digital Leica M new once - not a mistake I’ll be repeating!)

 

[NickTrop]

Leica has alienated photographers, like me, who couldn't justify the expense of their lenses and bodies since time immemorial. I will concede to a measure of Leica lust when film was king. Not s' much in the digital era, especially their bodies. Great ergonomics and craftmanship, questionable electronics. I'll stick with my full frame Nikons and Nikkor primes. If I was CEO of Leica, I'd go the way of Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and others and start making Leica primes in other mounts (and maybe get out of the digital body business all together) -- Many Canon and Nikon users would love to slap a 'cron on their bodies and would pay Leica prices for the privilege.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Get out of the digital body biz? Have you tried the M 10? I, by far, prefer shooting with Leica M digital over ever other digital option out there. When I went digital Canon was the only FF digital option. I never warmed up to digital Canons or digital Nikons. I still have my old Canon F-1s and have owned Nikon F-3s and had 500 C/Ms for a couple of decades.

I went all Leica M digital over 2 years ago and I have no REGRETS. Thought I would miss my 200 2L and I don't. I don't miss the size and weight of my Canon bodies. And Leica Ms really fit the way I see and work. If Leica stopped making Ms there would be no monochroms and the files from my MM are the only digital B&W files I have warmed up to.

I have a couple of really big jobs every year where I have to hire a couple of photographers to help me. One shoots Canon and the other shoots Nikon. They shoot raw and I work on all the digital files. I prefer the files from my Leica M's over the files from the Canon or the Nikon.

I don't like automation on my cameras period. That's not because i am some kind of manual snob. I shoot all manual because it is faster and easier for me and the way I work It's the way I have worked for over 40 years. I want to make all of the technical decisions. I can do it faster and better for the way I need my files to look than any auto modes.

Nice that Leica still gives me a real choice over everything else that is out there. And again this is the way that I prefer to work. There are plenty of those that see and work much differently and there are plenty of choices out there for them. Leica must be doing something right because there was over a year's waiting list for the M 10 when it came out.

 

[cz23]

Yes, Allen, but you have to admit that you're the one in a million (or less) exception. Plus, it's all us old guys who prefer working that way, a demographic not in Leica's favor. Hence the hodgepodge of AF solutions they now offer. We here on RFF hardly represent the camera market. A decade or two from now, I expect the M concept (if it still exists) will be a real novelty. One thing for sure, though; lots of folks will still feel alienated.

John

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

Dear Leica, keep making the MP until I have saved the money to buy a new one.

 

[Godfrey]

Revisiting this thread once more...

Not me. Leica has done the opposite of alienating me: It's Nikon, Canon, Sony, et al, that have alienated me to the point of disgust.

I've owned so many different digital cameras over the past decade and a half. The only ones that really stand out as sublime are my Leicas. Right behind them is my now ancient but still superlative Olympus E-1.

• I don't need a new camera every 90 days.
• I don't want ten thousand new features with every successive model.
• I won't buy a half a dozen new revisions of lenses every year.
• I don't need new control organizations and ten bazillion new configuration options every time I pick up a new model camera.
• I don't need more, and more, AND MORE pixel resolution every time I blink.

Yet this is what all the other manufacturers seem to focus on.

I'm changing my equipment kit around again now ... My needs and intents have changed, I no longer need or want a pro grade camera like the SL—it's no longer the right machine for my use. The Leica M-D does it just right for me, and what a rangefinder isn't the best at is better done with a CL body (or maybe the new CM when they announce it, depending on exactly what it is... ) using the adapters for my existing M and R lenses.

These cameras and their lenses suit my needs far better than the hectic model-changing-insanity and massively overloaded feature-itis of all the other manufacturers.

G

 

[KM-25]

Or that perhaps we think the product is poor, unreliable and not fit for purpose - and grossly overpriced for those reasons. Especially considering it betrays its history, when it was made to be an effective and reliable camera rather than an unreliable, gaudy bauble*. Nothing to do with affordability...

(*As evidenced by pointless design features that add expense: brass components outclassed by modern materials, a sensor that’s always 2 generations or more behind everyone else, and the ridiculous removable base preventing you from changing the battery or SD card if using a tripod - I could go on...! I bought a digital Leica M new once - not a mistake I’ll be repeating!)

How about not using the word “We” to represent “you”, because not all of we agree with you.

I use Nikon, Hasselblad and Leica digital bodies along with film versions for my actual full time job and life as a photographer. All have had equal shares of bugs to deal with and all have been equally as reliable. I pounded tens of thousands of images through an M240 I bought used and it was literally faultless, nothing dated about the sensor either.

The same goes for my M10, total workhorse including getting over 1,000 frames on a single battery during a paid day-in-the-life-of assignment in which the only camera used was the M10.

Peter Turnley is out doing amazing work in Cuba and Paris with his new M10 and has not a single complaint about the tech used....meanwhile in envy land, the barbs keep flying.

 

[Emile de Leon]

When Leica can come out with a body that suits my needs..I wont feel alienated..
It hasn't yet..
Maybe the CM..who knows..
I can afford it..but until the bodies are reliable and bulletproof..
I'll buy a Rolex instead..for a luxury item..
At least that will be working 10 years from now..and hold its value..
Its not that Leica is a bad product..it just needs to tic a few more boxes for me and I'm in..
In the meantime..I'm considering going back to film for a bit..use the old M3 & M6..and maybe the screwmount too..at least those are simple cams..and fun to use..
If Leica adds a movie feature to the m10..and maybe even a tilty screen..I'm in..lol..like that's ever going to happen..

 

[airfrogusmc]

Yes, Allen, but you have to admit that you're the one in a million (or less) exception. Plus, it's all us old guys who prefer working that way, a demographic not in Leica's favor. Hence the hodgepodge of AF solutions they now offer. We here on RFF hardly represent the camera market. A decade or two from now, I expect the M concept (if it still exists) will be a real novelty. One thing for sure, though; lots of folks will still feel alienated.

John

Hi John, kinda to my point about nice having that choice. Who else would have made an MM or an M-D? Doesn't make financial sense to the high volume folks but seemed to have worked pretty well for Leica. Leica has made a few more modern cameras but nice that they still make something that I and those like me prefer. It's paid off for Leica so far.

 

[airfrogusmc]

When Leica can come out with a body that suits my needs..I wont feel alienated..
It hasn't yet..
Maybe the CM..who knows..
I can afford it..but until the bodies are reliable and bulletproof..
I'll buy a Rolex instead..for a luxury item..
At least that will be working 10 years from now..and hold its value..
Its not that Leica is a bad product..it just needs to tic a few more boxes for me and I'm in..
In the meantime..I'm considering going back to film for a bit..use the old M3 & M6..and maybe the screwmount too..at least those are simple cams..and fun to use..
If Leica adds a movie feature to the m10..and maybe even a tilty screen..I'm in..lol..like that's ever going to happen..

I just don't understand why anyone would want to shoot video with a rangefinder. There are some amazing video cameras out there today. Proper tool and all that. Not trying to be harsh but I just don't get it especially when even a DSLR, though I wouldn't use one of those either for video, would be a better choice for video in my opinion. There are so many ones fits all options out there already. Nice to have something different, don't you think?

 

[mpaniagua]

I just don't understand why anyone would want to shoot video with a rangefinder. There are some amazing video cameras out there today. Proper tool and all that. Not trying to harsh but I just don't get it especially when even a DSLR, though I would use one of those either for video. would be a better choice for video in my opinion. There are so many ones fits all options out there already. Nice to have something different, don't you think?

I don't shoot video myself (with Leica or otherwise), but I suppose for someone that already has a host of Leica lens this would be a plus. Also, Leica lend itself for light traveling, so it wouldn't make much sense to bring both a digital camera and a video camera on a trip would it?

It wouldn't make much sense to me (because I don't normally shoot video) and from your comment, I assume it doesn't make sense to you, but it does make sense for someone hiking, because they bring their favorite camera type (rangefinder) AND a very nice video camera on one small package .


Regards

Marcelo

 

[ptpdprinter]

It wouldn't make much sense to me (because I don't normally shoot video) and from your comment, I assume it doesn't make sense to you, but it does make sense for someone hiking, because they bring their favorite camera type (rangefinder) AND a very nice video camera on one small package .

Use the 240; it has video. B&H has them in stock and on sale for only $5995. A lens is extra.

 

[Doug]

Some Leicas can shoot video... for those who prefer RF cameras and want video, there's the M240 that fits that need and is still available new.

For those of us who end up with a Leica featuring video, Leica could make it easier to disable video, and repurpose the top-mounted video button.

Yes, video may be not only unneeded but also an unwanted annoyance! For instance I made the mistake of taking an unfamiliar new camera on vacation... a Leica Q in which video can be made the default operating mode. Inadvertently! For about a day and a half visiting sites of interest, each "exposure" I shot was in fact a short video, sometimes a rather longer video. Unhappy about my error, I now know better but Leica could have done better too IMO.

I don't feel any sense of alienation about Leica, though.

 

[mpaniagua]

Use the 240; it has video. B&H has them in stock and on sale for only $5995. A lens is extra.

Thanks for the advice But as stated on post, I don't do video, and for digital, when inclined to do it, use a Canon 6d with a host of Leica R, Zeiss QBM and Olympus lens.

Best regards

Marcelo

 

[Emile de Leon]

I just don't understand why anyone would want to shoot video with a rangefinder. There are some amazing video cameras out there today. Proper tool and all that. Not trying to harsh but I just don't get it especially when even a DSLR

Already have that...4 of em..

Use the 240; it has video. B&H has them in stock and on sale for only $5995. A lens is extra

Fat camera..crappy video..no thx!

 

[Huss]

20 pages in, I'm sure I must have written something critical some place...
My beef w/ Leica is if you need to send your gear to be serviced. Because they need a full staff of techs, not just the one dood they have now. Which is why it takes 6 months + to get your stuff back.

But... the whole reason I originally bought into the digital Leica experience is because it is the only camera that is a simple RF, that just happens to have a digi sensor. There is nothing else like it. A couple of days ago I dusted off my M100 (M240 100 Year Anniversary Edition dontchaknow) and just remembered how enjoyable it is to use if someone made me shoot digital. Cuz of course we all know film is where it's at. No menu diving, no features I'll never use, no multi AF. Just the camera, the optical RF as the Great Spaghetti Monster with his Noodly Appendages intended, and a sweet lens.
I wish Nikon made the DF like this (as I have lots of manual Nikon lenses) instead of the fake DF, where they couldn't even be bothered to put in a decent manual focus system.
I pretty much only use my D850 for film scanning. But the digi M is used for taking real pictures.
Is the M240 fat? Compared to the M10, a bit husky, sure. Compared to any other FF digi cam, no.

 

[Bike Tourist]

Let me lay to rest the myth that the only Leica buyers are rich dilettantes looking to impress.

I have never forgotten my first Leica experience. I was stationed in Germany with the army, a photographer/writer with the Public Information Office. I gave my lowly PFC monthly salary to Foto Bachschmid for at least six months to get my M3. I was not rich.


Last week, I made an unwise economic move and purchased a new Type 262. I'm retired and still not rich. But really, really happy with the Leica.

 

[Doug]

Exactly, Dick! It was a worthwhile financial sacrifice. For me it was never about status, but function. Just out of the service with an hourly-wage Boeing job in 1967 I spent about 3 weeks wages on a used M2 and lens. I had experience with Canon and Nikon RFs before so it was a conscious choice. People have a mix of reasons to choose high-end products, and while in top quality there is often a pride of ownership at some level, there's also delight in "usership"!

 

[noisycheese]

What Dick and Doug said.


The irony of price based Leica resentment is that a nice used film M camera and a used 50mm M lens can be had for about $1000 USD each. That puts the Leica M experience within he reach of a lot more photographers, if they will merely open their minds a bit to the possibility of shooting film.

For less than the cost of a mid-range Canon or Nikon DSLR kit or about the cost of a Fuji X Pro 2 and the 23mm lens for it, a person could get themselves a film Leica.

 

[:: Mark]

The irony of price based Leica resentment is that a nice used film M camera and a used 50mm M lens can be had for about $1000 USD each. That puts the Leica M experience within he reach of a lot more photographers, if they will merely open their minds a bit to the possibility of shooting film.

I strongly suspect that anyone hesitant about “opening their mind” to shoot film is unlikely to rush out and spend $2000 for a second hand body and 50mm lens.

And *photography* used to be primarily about the pictures, not the “experience”.