How did you get out of Leica?

[Deleted member 65559]

I was thinking the same until I got Nikon F2. To me all-mechanical quality is equal to durability. Here is no film M build like F2. Ms are Porsche like. Nice to drive on sunny day and on the dry road. Nice to show up with. Nice to have.
F2 is Komatsu. Not sexy and heavy. It is made to be driven through the dirt and still works while and after it. Perfection to last.

Ko.Fe. I've never sent a Leica in for repair & I have had one roll across tarmac with the windblast from a helicopter & I've dropped and bumped them.... so our experiences are different. My current M4, I sent to DAG when I bought it, because it needed a CLA. The shutter speeds were way off and i wanted to have it adapted for a Leicavit.
But you're right, the Nikon F2 is a rugged beauty. If....if I chose an SLR one camera/one lens.... i'd spring for a Nikon F2 Titan and a 35mm..... but the smaller,quiet Leica has always worked for me..

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The only other person I've seen on the forum that shares my consensus the M4-2 was crap that just about shut the Leica doors.

I really don't think it is apples to apples comparing digital to film. I have 3 or 4 high dollar "state of the art" digital cameras over 5~10 years old that aren't worth the effort to even try selling. Forget any needed repairs, they aren't worth it. A complete overhaul (more than a CLA) of a Leica film body from the most respected Leica repair shop won't run over $500, and it will last another 30 years before needing maintenance. Compare that to my D750 introduced in 2014. 2 years ago mine malfunctioned, Nikon would not honor the warranty without a receipt proving I bought from a USA Nikon dealer (about 3 years ago for $1500) and the repair cost was ~$700 at an authorized Nikon repair shop. Today the Nikon isn't worth what I paid for the repair while the M4 is worth twice what I paid for it 5 years ago.

And there is no comparable film RF on the market today or in the last 20 years to compare with a film M model.

Well, for digital I mostly have bunch of made in Japan cameras. They are older than 10 years and works. Even original batteries, made in Japan, still good.
Where your D750 is made? Thailand. And this is it.
With my Canon DSLR it is not about how much they cost now, but about them working as new without repairs. No, one of my Canon DSLRs is on its second shutter. Because I'm third owner of it. At least. Previous two I'm aware of, used it for paid photography. One of them is our daughter. She used it professionally without having any backup.

To make my M4-2 "good" I have to at least replace curtains on it, lugs are also getting thin. YEE price:
M body CLA + curtain change Leica M1, M2, M3, M4, M4-2, M4-P
(labor only, curtain cost see below) $240.00
M curtain - long $100.00
M curtain - short $85.00
Leica M2, M3, M4 body new strap steel lugs during CLA $80.00

505 USD, before two ways shipping Canada to USA.

Haha, don't know anyone who uses any film camera as a digital, but even if Gary Winogrand was still around he'd still be able to get his M serviced; if he were shooting Canon he'd have been through 12 bodies over the same time frame. 😀

Seriously, I was just comparing the comments of those who think a $1200 Leica film body is outrageously expensive but think nothing of a $3000 Canon digital body, when the former will still be worth at least that much (if not a lot more) in a few years, whereas the Canon will be worthless.

I used M4-2 for thousands exposures per year. Number of scans was not far from numbers of digital exposures in LR count.
Garry would ditched film just as Parr, Gilden and many if not most others did. Film is not used by those who needs exposures for results.
Also, Garry didn't just have only two worn out M4. He was buying used film M from good to him dealers and was bringing his film M for repairs regularly and locally. Now? Send it for DAG and wait for months if not longer? Or somewhere else and wait. And I doubt he would be able to sent it to Leica Camera AG for repair. He was not a rich person, he told "I'm surviving" and it wasn't joke.

To be honest I like the fact what more durable mechanical Nikon F cameras lasts, but don't have outrageous prices. It just feels normal.
It might be odd, but I care more about cameras durability as long lasting term. And film M are not cameras like this. If in real use, not roll a month "use".

 

[jsrockit]

Well, of course an M10 isn't mid range. LOL

Ok, so which new Leica is? The CL with lens is $3000+, the Q2 $5000.

A mid-range Canon or Nikon body can be far more expensive than an M6, but only one of those will be worth half in short order...

An M6 body is $1500 to $2000 + these days...and then you have to buy a lens. That can buy you a pretty nice Canon.

Yet people don't bat an eye at the price of the Canon, and are astonished at the price of an M6, thinking it somehow elite...

Who are these people that specifically mention the M6 when saying Leica is expensive? If these people want a digital camera, they are not talking about the M6. People are looking at new Leica which is expensive.

It's rather silly, as one can put money into a film Leica and easily get it all back, and sometimes more, if one buys right; that'll never happen with the Canikon.

Yes, Leica holds its value well and film bodies have gone up... but the depreciation in digital cameras is similar to what you'd spend in film if you photograph often enough... and then you can still sell the Canon or Nikon.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Yes, Leica holds its value well and film bodies have gone up... but the depreciation in digital cameras is similar to what you'd spend in film...

JS, I've never been convinced of this. This sounds like the kind of empty explanation a guy would use trying to convince his wife. 😉
Everyone i know doing digital photography is constantly 'upgrading' cameras. A Leica M-10 body is $8795 USD... (no lens)... I could buy lifetimes worth of film. Those same digital photographers also have costs for powerful computers & hard drives, scanners & printers....

 

[splitimageview]

The comments I’m referring to are right here in this thread. 🙂

And the original post was about keeping a film Leica, hence the reference to film Leica bodies.

Just find it interesting that a Leica is considered “a play toy for the rich” when there are plenty of options from other brands to spend similar amounts.

I am pretty sure they are excellent cameras but from my point of view they always seemed to be the showoff or statement playtoys marketed and aimed only for the very privileged, rich or famous upper class.

 

[Huss]

..
The F4 has probably been the best film-Nikon bargain for at least the last eight years. Some complain of slow autofocus and its single focus area, but for some of us that's not a limitation. ..

I don't understand the complaint about the slow AF on the F4. I also have an F6 as well as have had the F100 and the AF matches up. I can't tell much difference. It makes me wonder if people actually used one, or repeat what they heard on the web?

Sure it only has one AF patch, but one is all I need! It's a lot more than the zero in my F3 or M7... and guess which one nails focus all the time, every time?
🙂

 

[Huss]

With all this talk of the M6, I always thought of it as a low water mark for Leica.
It had the cheapest level construction, a dumbed down RF that flares badly, but with the addition of a very basic meter.
Zinc bubbles anyone?

Leica peaked with the M5, then regained some of that mojo with the M7/MP/MA.

 

[telenous]

Oh, I don't know. Last year I bought my fourth film M and a couple more lenses. My plan is to get so far deep in Leica that I'll get out on the other side.

 

[telenous]

Kidding aside, I always thought more important "getting out" of various silly attitudes associated with Leica ownership than the camera system itself.

 

[Michael Markey]

Kidding aside, I always thought more important "getting out" of various silly attitudes associated with Leica ownership than the camera system itself.

Good point .

 

[phrons]

Every now and then I think of selling my M2 kit.

But, I am only human.

Even though I can make more photos with digital. I can make better photos with AF. I can capture more spontaneous moments without having to “anticipate” the shot. I still love shooting my M2.

I have no problem admitting I’m a pretentious *******.

 

[Brian Atherton]

Reading posts about the tales of woe about Leica failures and their need for repair is scary. 😱

I must have lived in a charmed and cozy bubble… :angel:

During thirty-odd working years being around photographers who used Leicas to earn a living and/or personal work - me included - I can barely remember anyone needing a Leica repaired: a MR-4 meter that packed up and a M3 that required a new base due to the owner dropping it and treading on it.

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Reading posts about the tales of woe about Leica failures and their need for repair is scary. 😱

I must have lived in a charmed and cozy bubble… :angel:

During thirty-odd working years being around photographers who used Leicas to earn a living and/or personal work - me included - I can barely remember anyone needing a Leica repaired: a MR-4 meter that packed up and a M3 that required a new base due to the owner dropping it and treading on it.

It's the nature of internet forums that inevitably those with problems looking for help turn up. It's clear Leica have had sensor issues and colour issues on their earlier digitals, and there are certainly issues on the latest ones. I am a strange beastie in that I must have owned the only brand new Honda to break down three times, and I had to chuck my Nikon D70 with an insignificant amount of use as the mirror locked up. The principal reasons I won't buy a modern Leica digital camera is - I only use digital for colour and would rather use a much cheaper camera as a consequence.

I love my M3 and my Leicaflex SL2, admire my M5, R8 and Leica III, and enjoy the lenses that I can afford. I can't see getting rid, but I've happily moved on an M6 and M2 without any great regret (other than not getting the current prices).

 

[Brian Atherton]

It's the nature of internet forums that inevitably those with problems looking for help turn up. It's clear Leica have had sensor issues and colour issues on their earlier digitals, and there are certainly issues on the latest ones. I am a strange beastie in that I must have owned the only brand new Honda to break down three times, and I had to chuck my Nikon D70 with an insignificant amount of use as the mirror locked up. The principal reasons I won't buy a modern Leica digital camera is - I only use digital for colour and would rather use a much cheaper camera as a consequence.

I love my M3 and my Leicaflex SL2, admire my M5, R8 and Leica III, and enjoy the lenses that I can afford. I can't see getting rid, but I've happily moved on an M6 and M2 without any great regret (other than not getting the current prices).

Yes, agreed, Charles. I should have made clear my experience is with film cameras.

The point you make about the internet being the now go-to place for help or complaint is very valid. I’m sure we would have heard about Leica’s sensor failures without the web but possibly not in the same overwhelming detail and justified ire; likewise Nikon’s oil-on-the-sensor debacle.

I acknowledge gear of all sorts fails for all sorts of reasons, indeed my Nikon F2 of one week old failed in Scotland on holiday: the Photomic head linkage broke; also my Weston 5 required recalibration.

Nevertheless, although Leica (and other makers) rightly should be held to account for their failures and poor service, I do feel at times Leica comes in for unfair criticism principally because some consider the company elitist and overpriced.

Other than this, everything is a reliability lottery.

 

[David Hughes]

I just wish I had the time to count the number of interpretations of "Leica" as a film using RF and the less obvious take on other cameras as being Japanese SLR's.

FWIW, Leica made an(?) APS, SLR's, P&S's and one or two very nice not so compacts cameras with very good zoom lenses; think of the C3. Some of them were seen by most people as an exercise in badge swapping and to me that started me seeing the brand in free fall. I think they've recovered their position now from the M9 onwards.

Note I'm saying nothing about all the specials they made but I wouldn't turn down a Hermes if someone gave me one and the lenses.

As for being a rich man's toy; Leica are/were the only big name I can think of who had a catalogue in which they acknowledged that not everyone was rich and so recommended a few money saving outfits. Them days have gone, alas. It's a great pity people on eBay encourage high prices by paying them...

Regards, David

 

[Dogman]

Not everyone who shoots digital is on the constant upgrade wagon. I'm constantly downgrading. The last DSLR I bought was a Nikon D700, introduced in 2008. It's the digital equivalent of the Nikon F2 I used and loved in the 70s/80s. It's a brick, heavy and metal and the 12mp sensor produces outstanding results. No useless video, easy to understand menus and simple operation. It was in "like new" condition and cost me about $500. And older Nikkor lenses are generally excellent and they are abundant and cheap.

 

[karateisland]

Not everyone who shoots digital is on the constant upgrade wagon. I'm constantly downgrading. The last DSLR I bought was a Nikon D700, introduced in 2008. It's the digital equivalent of the Nikon F2 I used and loved in the 70s/80s. It's a brick, heavy and metal and the 12mp sensor produces outstanding results. No useless video, easy to understand menus and simple operation. It was in "like new" condition and cost me about $500. And older Nikkor lenses are generally excellent and they are abundant and cheap.

Same--I downgraded from a Nikon Z6 and two lenses to my old Fuji X100F and couldn't be happier.

 

[jsrockit]

JS, I've never been convinced of this. This sounds like the kind of empty explanation a guy would use trying to convince his wife. 😉
Everyone i know doing digital photography is constantly 'upgrading' cameras. A Leica M-10 body is $8795 USD... (no lens)... I could buy lifetimes worth of film. Those same digital photographers also have costs for powerful computers & hard drives, scanners & printers....

Sure, but it also makes sense. If I buy a $2000 digital camera and make 10000-20000 shots it would have been $2000 in film. I can upgrade after that and still sell the camera. Not to mention if you buy a few year old digital camera...how cheap they are.

You are right on the computer equipment but in analog, if you are doing it right, you need a good darkroom, and that costs money. Most analog photographers I know are still using all of their computer equipment anyway. Even going as far to buy nice digital cameras and a macro lens to scan.

It really comes down to how prolific you are. In either scenario, generally speaking, photography is just expensive. However, no matter if you use digital or analog, you cannot put a price on the fun we have doing it.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...
Everyone i know doing digital photography is constantly 'upgrading' cameras. A Leica M-10 body is $8795 USD... (no lens)... I could buy lifetimes worth of film. Those same digital photographers also have costs for powerful computers & hard drives, scanners & printers....

Where are many who are keep on buying film cameras as well. Couple of new film M are same 8000 USD.
My computer is ten years old, scanners are nothing new and printer either.
I spend not less on film, DR paper and chemicals. DR paper is total rip-off in particular if fresh.

Reading posts about the tales of woe about Leica failures and their need for repair is scary. 😱

I must have lived in a charmed and cozy bubble… :angel:

During thirty-odd working years being around photographers who used Leicas to earn a living and/or personal work - me included - I can barely remember anyone needing a Leica repaired: a MR-4 meter that packed up and a M3 that required a new base due to the owner dropping it and treading on it.

I don't see any practical reason to send M4-2 for fourth repair and pay for it next to its initial price for me.
So, in your thirty-odd working years, which film M were those - "I can barely remember anyone needing a Leica repaired"? M4?

 

[MCTuomey]

Not a full break, just re-alignment based on need. I need AF so, out with MF leica bodies and in with a Q. I have one MF M lens left, will sell eventually. It's just gear in the end. Yes, Leica M haptics hold a unique place, and the glass is generally wonderful, but my priorities have changed. Time to move on.

It really comes down to how prolific you are. In either scenario, generally speaking, photography is just expensive. However, no matter if you use digital or analog, you cannot put a price on the fun we have doing it.

+1 Unless you have the vision and temperament to buy a spartan amount of gear and shoot with it long and hard and not swap stuff out. That wouldn't be me.

Several posters above mention "downgrading" digital gear - smart ploy now that digi gear has reached a level where 5+ year old cameras are really very good and well-depreciated. When you have vast lens compatibility, either within a system like Nikon or through adapted glass, you can put together fantastic outfits very economically, no doubt.