To Leica or Not to Leica?

pcfranchina said:
I wish it was that easy. With my current situation I would have to sell my current gear.
Pentax k-1000, Bessa r3a, Zorki 4k, A few Pentax mount lenses and maybe a Ricoh Xr10m.
All that for 1 Leica and I still would have to add some I think.
Click to expand...
True. And if the "affair" didn't work out, you could still sell the M3 for most, if not all you paid for it, and find a decent K-mount SLR for far less than a King's ransom. Again, though, I'm betting you'd probably end up looking for a second lens for the M3. Stuff Happens.


- Barrett
 
I had a CL & a couple of Leica lenses (40/2 Summicron, Collapsible 50/2 Summicron & 90/4 Elmar) for a fair bit. In the end I sold the CL & both 'crons to finance a Bessa R & more Canon RF lenses. (Kept the Elmar though - that old uncoated lens is magical with Reala). Never forget that what you want is rarely what you need.

Now, if you want a real fast trip to financial ruin, go buy a nice cheap Speed Graphic and burn some chromes. Then you'll be in much bigger trouble that Leica could ever cause... :D

Play. Enjoy. What more is there with these toys?

William
 
After I got the M6 my Nikon DSLR (D1x, some lens) was sold, my Bessa-T was sold and my R-D1s sits in its bag .... I can't tell what it is but the Leica is simply a pleasure to use. I bought my one used and it should be roughly 12 years old but it works like new. I was never into this Leica thing but the M6 is exactly what I want from a camera, easy to use, fun to work with and trustworthy ...
 
I dont need a Aston Martin, but damn I would love to have one. Im sure it would be a hell of a experience compared to my little toyota corolla. If I could afford it, I would, but I cant so I dont worry about it. Leica for me is like Aston Martin, toyota is my canon 20D. Both get the job done but the 20D is as dull as dishwater. The problem is im getting to the point where I might be able to afford a leica...and thats harsh.
 
Avotius said:
I dont need a Aston Martin, but damn I would love to have one. Im sure it would be a hell of a experience compared to my little toyota corolla. If I could afford it, I would, but I cant so I dont worry about it. Leica for me is like Aston Martin, toyota is my canon 20D. Both get the job done but the 20D is as dull as dishwater. The problem is im getting to the point where I might be able to afford a leica...and thats harsh.
Click to expand...
Like I said...Stuff Happens. ;)


- Barrett
 
I had wanted a Leica kit since the late 1940s. Frugality kept me from getting one until the late 1990s, when I got an M6 and a couple of Leica lenses. Whether or not it was frugal, I have never for a moment regretted my purchase. The fun factor trumps everything, even frugality.

Richard
 
Avitius, you can always sell your 20D and some glass and get a Leica. Would it be worth it? All the years playing with photgraphy I never went with Nikon or even Canon. I was ok with putting Pentax glass on my Ricoh SLR evenutally just for kicks I got a k1000 SE end to be honest, I really never used it. I still found myself going for the Ricoh.
 
By the way what is a good price for a M3 or M6 body in excellent condition? I don’t have preference for chrome or black. I love the look of the Barnack Leicas but don’t really think it’s practical. I am looking for a reliable shooter as this will be my main camera. I am not even too sure on what I can sell my other gear for, everything is in like new condition. Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
 
Better off with the M6. M3 does not have 35mm framelines. M6 is also metered and readily available in black. M6 classic can be found easily for about $1200. Also better film rewind.
 
pcfranchina said:
So agreed that 1200 is a fair price for an excellent condition M6?
Click to expand...

You can get a very nice M6 or even M6 TTL for 1200. If you don't care for the light-meter, I suggest to also consider the M2 (if your wide is 35) or M4-P if your wide is 28. Great cameras. Can be had for US 700(M2)-900(M4P) or less in great condition with CLA.

Roland.
 
I dont need a Aston Martin, but damn I would love to have one. Im sure it would be a hell of a experience compared to my little toyota corolla.
Click to expand...

The M Leica is a damned nice camera to use, but to continue your analogy, it's no Aston Martin. And Canons, Nikons, etc., are certainly not Corollas in comparison. The Leica does not offer - as does the Aston Martin - a huge and obvious performance advantage across the board compared to other cars. The quantifiable advantages are small and limited, the others largely imaginary.
 
kevin m said:
The M Leica is a damned nice camera to use, but to continue your analogy, it's no Aston Martin. And Canons, Nikons, etc., are certainly not Corollas in comparison. The Leica does not offer - as does the Aston Martin - a huge and obvious performance advantage across the board compared to other cars. The quantifiable advantages are small and limited, the others largely imaginary.
Click to expand...
It's falling on deaf ears, my man. There are some things that just have to be experienced, even though they offer diminishing returns; such as owning a Rolex, Leica, Porsche, Denon, what have you.

Some people will say: "It's nice, but, it isn't that great."

Others: "Wow, this is some lens."

Others will just bask in the pride of ownership.

I hope he isn't disappointed, and that it is worth the sacrifice. If he has a hardcore rangefinder guy, he will probably love it nonetheless.
 
the reason I recently bought a CL was for the lens choices, not for the Leica name. I'm certain I'll have an M2/3/4 within the next year, just for the body. I'm not so sure I'll be buying a whole lot of Leica lenses, but maybe one or two.

I'd never sell all my gear for a Leica. I'd save my money for a user M and a lens or two. It's not because it says Leica on it, it's because they are fine machines for taking pictures. It doesn't matter if anyone can tell what camera I used, it's that I can tell what camera I'm using. Anyone who thinks Leica cameras are a waste of money because the pictures aren't any different isn't thinking, IMHO. I don't know anyone who uses quality hand tools because they fix their car better. They use quality tools because quality tools are easier to use and more durable.

I might sell some of my gear to finance a purchase, but never all of it. If I had some cameras I didn't like to use, they'd be gone, but I've not reached that level yet :) Selling it all just seems like a recipe for disappointment. There are just some situations where something like a Leica would be inappropriate. Having more than one M-mount body means you aren't stuck with whatever ISO you have loaded, your lenses are useful even if one body need fixing, and you won't drive yourself crazy thinking there is something wrong with a lens since you can easily verify it on the other body (more important buying used lenses). And selling all your cameras for one body is puting too many eggs in one basket.
 
Last edited:
I bought an excellent condition M6 for £600 a few months back (about $1200). Not the cheapest camera I've ever bought, but not the most expensive either. It's one of the few bodies I've ever owned and extensively used that I can find almost nothing to complain about, it just does exactly what I want and has almost perfect ergonomics for my hands and way of working. Nothing more to be said really. I don't feel like HCB just because I use a Leica sometimes, but I do really enjoy using it to make pictures, which is something I do a lot and like to make as fun as possible.

Ian
 
I'm in about the same boat as "Berliner". I bought my M4-2 in 1983 because my income tax refund was enough to cover it and I had wanted one for half my life. How to justify it? Who cares?

I will say this: I bought the 50mm Summicron with the body, and over the next couple of years or so acquired the 35mm f/2 and the 90mm f/2.8. Those are the only ones I wanted, and I've never added any more.

It's worth mentioning that what I paid for all four items wouldn't begin to touch the current price of an an M-7 or an M-8, and I mean just the body. The way the prices have inflated is scary.

But I'm not sure 'fanaticism' is necessarily why one buys a Leica. Compared to most cameras they tend to hold more of their value - I could probably sell mine for about what I paid for them even though dollars today are different than twenty-some years ago.

True, mine is not the latest one - it doesn't even know what a battery is. But I'm in no mood to replace it with any of the current models, certainly not at current prices. It's true that they were 'expensive' when I bought mine, but I don't think they were the arm and a leg they cost now.

All of which is to say, WHY did I buy the thing? Damn it, bacause I WANTED it.
 
pcfranchina said:
I guess the big difference is that a Leica will somewhat hold its value, while most SLRs have such little value. I still have 2 SLRs that aren't even worth selling. A k1000 and a Ricoh Xr10M. They both sit in a bad and never get used. I had a 3rd, a Yashica 2 lens kit and B&H wanted to give me $40 bux for the the body and 2 lenses. I ended up giving it to someone who would use it.
Click to expand...
There is one brand of manual SLRs (same age as the one you mentioned above) that holds their values *really, really well*. It starts with an 'O'.

As for Leicas, I have enough sense now to realize that I need a good brain and eyes to produce truly good pictures, more than I need good cameras like a Leica MP or Nikon SP.

Having said that, I *want* a Leica, just for the sake of having and using it. No more, no less.

Remember to put in a good CLA cost into your total purchase, unless you're lucky to nab a recently CLA'd camera, you'll probably need it.
 
Last edited:
kevin m said:
The M Leica is a damned nice camera to use, but to continue your analogy, it's no Aston Martin. And Canons, Nikons, etc., are certainly not Corollas in comparison. The Leica does not offer - as does the Aston Martin - a huge and obvious performance advantage across the board compared to other cars. The quantifiable advantages are small and limited, the others largely imaginary.
Click to expand...

The oft-used car/camera analogy breaks down (as all analogies do) because cars are not tools used to produce an end product like cameras are. Any vehicle that is capable of performing its function simply gets you from point A to point B at a certain speed in a certain amount of time. However, I agree with your overall perspective. High-end 35mm consumer gear is a clear case of diminishing returns relative to incremental performance gains over competent much less expensive alternatives.

Prints made with $90 Konica Auto S3, $40 Electro CC's 1.8/35 lens, or (literally) $2.39 Lynx 14e (plus $40 CLA/repair), or old $150 Kiev 4/m with interchangeable lenses (I "bet" - don't own a Kiev 4), if scattered on a table, would be indestinguishable, generally speaking, from pictures taken with any Leica to anyone including professionals. There is a leap from cheap/Godawful to "decent", certainly. The leap from "decent" - however, to the very top of the line simply isn't worth the price. And, as a value proposition, high-end 35mm photographic gear, in a word, "sucks".

Example, Hassleblad-made MF Distagon fisheye costs $7389. A used Russian Arsat in Pentacon 6 mount cost me $130. What's the better lens? The Hassleblad, I'm sure. Is it 49 times better (7389/130)? Doubful. I've used the Arsat. It doesn't suck:

FWIW, Photosig users rate the Arsat fisheye at 4.67 of 5

Representative Review Snip,

Photography Experience
21+ years, Outdoor

Summary
This lens is so sharp it looks like the image was chiseled out on the film. I photograph old buildings, bridges, and mountain scenes. On a brick or stone building every rock or brick literally jumps off the image.

http://photosig.pcphotoreview.com/c...es/medium-format/kiev/PRD_135875_3113crx.aspx

Now, I know this thread isn't about MF fisheye lenses but I use it to illustrate a point. One lens costs seven grand from an exhaulted camera/lens company. The other - a "lowly" Russian lens not widely known to Westerners, without a decades old PR effort to develop their reputation..., and you probably have to look at the differences in prints between the two under a loupe. (Yes, the Hassy fisheye has superior resolution in the lower left corner, as seen here in this 7000X magnified crop blah, blah, blah... Rolls eyes/puh-lease...)

The biggest quality gains - obvious to anyone, is jumping from 135 to larger formats. The tiny differences amongst lenses within a format - especially small format, are often - frankly, silly.

Sorry for preaching, I'm just trying to save some souls from the 7th and lowest level of Photographer hell: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

In the final analysis, this whole matter is more an issue of the 4 "P's" of product positioning:

Product
Price
Placement
Promotion

Than lens performance.
 
Last edited:
Hmmmm
Logic doesn't get much of a look in does it ?
Even my humble '65 Minolta SRs can create excellent slides , and with servicing , it goes on and on - no meter , like an early Leica.

But that's not the point - I now have one or two Leica IIIc / IIIf - primitive compared to an M series , my Minoltas and a Zorki clone or two ... [ or more than two ]

the Zorki , with the Leica lense , provides results the equal of the IIIf - well , I can't tell the difference ...

But the squinty Leica ... is an experience that the Minolta or Nikkormat or Zorki , just can't equal ... but I can't quantify / justify this at all .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom