Is Leica hitting notes only a dog can hear?

?

?

KoNickon said:
The original poster asked what the inherently better aspect of Leica lenses was that merited their high prices. It's my understanding that Leica lenses are generally thought to outperform other lenses at wide apertures. That, if anything, is what you get with a Leica lens that you can't get elsewhere. Assuming that to be true, the question is: if you're handholding and using fast film in those situations (I'm guessing this is the case probably 95+% of the time, based on comments on RFF), how can you see this better quality?

Furthermore, it's generally true that all 35mm format lenses, Leica or otherwise, perform best at f5.6-f8 or thereabouts, and differences among lenses at those apertures are very small to nonexistent. Lens test after lens test demonstrates this. Photographers know this, and I'll bet the vast majority of pictures, when circumstances permit, are taken at those "sweet spot" apertures (narrow DOF being of minor importance except in limited situations).

So, then, how to justify buying a Leica lens, when its demonstrated superiority is only in certain rare photo situations? I think it has to come down to the perception of Leica quality rather than actual demonstrated better results, and the idea of owning "the best" rather than actual need for it. It's the same as owning a Porsche and never driving it at anywhere near its capabilities. "Need" = "want."
Click to expand...

There's no justification necessary. Its your money. If you want to buy it, buy it. Don't try to convince others why they should or should not buy it. That is the start of endless arguments.

What we can do here is, as much as possible, let people know what they are getting for their money. Whether they want to buy it or not is their call. Trying to defend a viewpoint of "its' worth it" or "it's not worth it" just creates animosity.
 
Hey ... to all you lucky dogs out there with your Noctiluxes ... Tri Elmars etc:

WOOF WOOF ... WOOF WOOF!

(translation .. 'I've spent all my money on bodies and can't afford decent lenses!') ;-)
 
Could I summarise this way?

a. Good pictures can be taken by any camera and any lens, because the most important elements are the creativity and capability of the photographer. In other words, it's the Indian, not the arrow. However, a really good photographer will be able to make the most out of his equipment and can take an excellent cameras to its limits. In other words, a good Indian will really know how to make use of his arrows and take even better pictures.

b. Putting the Indian aside and just concentrating on the arrow, for the same photographer in the same situation using a Leica and Brand X camera/lens at the same settings, the Leica camera/lens may take better pictures (in terms of contrast, flare resistance, vignetting, corner sharpness, bokeh, etc), esp if a tripod is used and the camera is focused correctly and film is exposed and developed correctly.

c. Leica lenses/cameras can perform better under certain situations, and the difference can be seen. (Eg easier to focus in low light, less camera shake at low shutter speeds leading to sharper available darkness pictures). However, the quality improvement may not be very large, compared to a modern SLR with IS lenses. Nevertheless, there are other advantages to Leica, eg. size, weight, build quality, etc.

d. Leica lenses are hellishly expensive by general standards. However, quality has a price, and performance improvement does not come cheap. Whether paying 300% more for the last 3% of performance is worth it is something for each buyer to decide.
 
Last edited:
waileong says it the best !

"Good pictures can be taken by any camera and any lens, because the most important elements are the creativity and capability of the photographer"

Olympus Stylus Epic, or a F3HP/85/F1.4, whatever......you get my drift.

It is what you can do with any camera, and make it work!

I think Leica are going after the super rich market, those you have Ferrari's and Rolls Royces living in Dubai, flying on Emirates in first class with endless cash on cash! 😎

Cheers

Mark
Quito, EC
 
KoNickon said:
I was partly teasing. Still, that's a high indoors percentage.
Click to expand...

Maybe I was a bit over sensitive. 🙂 In any case, I do take lots of pictures indoors at night since that's when I seem to have the most free time.

/ira
 
I hear you! But I look around the house and I don't seem to have much of anything worth photographing (my wife, the obvious candidate, rather firmly discourages candid nighttime portraits!).
 
Leica would do well to develop (with Japanese or Chinese manufacturing help), several much lower priced digital M rangefinder bodies, like they did with the Minolta CLE.

A digital Leica M-rangefinder around $1000 or so would sell like hotcakes to a huge new market of students, hobbyists, people with less money. It would not have to be top, top, quality.

They could even try a lower priced digital full frame camera, even if there WERE technical problems or the image was not optimum on the edges due to light fall-off, people would buy them anyway and live with it.

Keep the flagship line, but sell more cameras. Come out with something daring, like an AF rangefinder with a moveable focal plane.
 
Exactly.

An AFFORDABLE digital rangefinder would be revolutionary, and would give Leica a market penetration it will never have otherwise. It's quest for the holy grail of perfection is becoming a crippling obsession.

How many cheapo consumer zooms do you suppose Canon sells for every L lens?
 
kevin m said:
Exactly.

An AFFORDABLE digital rangefinder would be revolutionary, and would give Leica a market penetration it will never have otherwise. It's quest for the holy grail of perfection is becoming a crippling obsession.

How many cheapo consumer zooms do you suppose Canon sells for every L lens?
Click to expand...

Or indeed how many P&S cameras per dSLR? What's affordable, Kevin? Most holiday snappers were only convinced to spend more than 50 quid on a camera by the change over to digital. I don't see the mass market giving up its "features" and automation for a camera with 1950's handling.
I think we're stuck with expensive RF's in the new market as there aren't many of us that enjoy using them.
 
You're misjudging the market. Millions of buyers are getting entry level DSLR's because they have an interest in "something better" and want to try photography with something other than a point and shoot.

There would be a huge dormant market for a quality rangefinder with lenses that didn't cost as much as a car to assemble a shooting kit.

People don't buy because they don't have the alternative.
 
...they're getting entry level dslr's because they are as easy to use as as point and shoot but supposedly take "better" photos or are perceived as more "serious". But take away the zoom lenses and the AF and (as in RF cameras) and I wonder how many folks would be willing to pay $1,000.......or even $600.
 
Keith novak said:
Hey ... to all you lucky dogs out there with your Noctiluxes ... Tri Elmars etc:

WOOF WOOF ... WOOF WOOF!

(translation .. 'I've spent all my money on bodies and can't afford decent lenses!') ;-)
Click to expand...

Keith, the lens in your avatar is pretty much as good as it gets ! 🙂
 
Plasmat said:
There would be a huge dormant market for a quality rangefinder with lenses that didn't cost as much as a car to assemble a shooting kit.

People don't buy because they don't have the alternative.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that. The Ricoh GR-D isn't any threat to it's mainstream competition. A good optical rangefinder mechanism is expensive. P&S cameras don't even have viewfinders as they add to much to the cost.

A Digital version of the old Zeiss Hologon (not the lens -the fixed lens camera) with a single aperture ultra wide (f/5.6 ?- depending on chip size) fixed focus designed for digital lens, aps-c sized or 4/3 chip and a high quality built in viewfinder with spirit level -assembled in Asia to keep costs down might find an audience. Depth of field at that chip size would have everything in focus and correcting for a single aperture and fixed distance would greatly reduce the cost of producing a superior optic. Throw in anti-shake to open up the possibilty of evrything sharp available light images. Ultra-wides are the achilles heel of DSLR systems so this might find a market if the camera cost was less then high end ultra wide lenses (sub $2000).
 
Last edited:
Pablito said:
...they're getting entry level dslr's because they are as easy to use as as point and shoot but supposedly take "better" photos or are perceived as more "serious". But take away the zoom lenses and the AF and (as in RF cameras) and I wonder how many folks would be willing to pay $1,000.......or even $600.
Click to expand...
Don't underestimate what people want.

When I go out with my R-D1, I get questions all the time. There are lots and lots of photography students, hobbyists, etc.

It won't be a HUGE mass market like for the Canon Rebel DSLR, but it would be a very respectable niche. It would get bigger as more found out about the camera.

Many are memerized by mass marketing and just don't know any better.
 
Plasmat said:
Don't underestimate what people want.

When I go out with my R-D1, I get questions all the time. There are lots and lots of photography students, hobbyists, etc.

It won't be a HUGE mass market like for the Canon Rebel DSLR, but it would be a very respectable niche. It would get bigger as more found out about the camera.

Many are memerized by mass marketing and just don't know any better.
Click to expand...

I get questions about my M2 but I doubt Jessop's are getting beseiged with requests for them 🙂
As for your last statement, well that just explains the upsurge in dSLR sales as indeed it did for SLR sales in the '70s and '80s. Many people who bought Pentax K1000's would really have been better off with a Canonet but that prism head was just sooo irresistible. Maybe they'd all seen Blowup too many times 🙂.
It's all marketing when you come down to it.
 
I get questions about my M2 but I doubt Jessop's are getting beseiged with requests for them


Apples and oranges. An M2 is an out of production film camera that is still relatively expensive.

If there was a new AFFORDABLE digital rangefinder product (and digital is what the public wants), my bet is that it would be a hit.

Of course, this is all speculation.

However, you can't judge accurately from sales of a $3000 (£1500) Epson R-D1 or a $5000 (£2500) Leica M8, with NO lens.

Those prices are just too dizzy for most potential buyers.

The nuts on these forums might think it's worth it (me included), but honestly, we're far from typical.
 
markinlondon said:
I get questions about my M2 but I doubt Jessop's are getting beseiged with requests for them 🙂
As for your last statement, well that just explains the upsurge in dSLR sales as indeed it did for SLR sales in the '70s and '80s. Many people who bought Pentax K1000's would really have been better off with a Canonet but that prism head was just sooo irresistible. Maybe they'd all seen Blowup too many times 🙂.
It's all marketing when you come down to it.
Click to expand...

the viewers of Blowup bought a lot of the Yardbirds LP's also.
 
...and I wonder how many folks would be willing to pay $1,000.......or even $600.
Click to expand...

Me. I'd say that up to $3k is a price I'd be willing to pay for a cropped sensor rangefinder. I thought long and hard about the M8. Had it been 100% successful, I would have found a way to scrape up the funds. But that didn't happen, and the bulk of my rangefinder gear (the expensive, Leica stuff) is going to be sold to buy, in all likelihood, a Canon 5D and some L glass, and I'll keep one rangefinder body and a couple of lenses to shoot B&W film.

A handful of determined hobbyists isn't enough to keep the company a going concern, I fear. Leica DESPERATELY needs something between the P&S Digilux line and the M8 to be relevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom