What is special about Leica?

[lonemantis]

Hey everyone, I'm doing some research for a potential project about Leica and its users, and I'd really love to hear some of your thoughts.

Not everyone here is a Leica user (I shoot an M3), but many of us have opinions about them, and I think it's interesting to explore why so many people are so devoted to the brand.

That said, what do you think makes Leica cameras different or special? As well, what do you think is different/special about people who use Leicas? Is there any difference at all?

 

[thegman]

Maybe it's blend of being very well built, and also very beautiful. Other cameras are well built, but not as pretty, some cameras are prettier but maybe not as well built. Simplicity of use, the noise the shutter makes all add up to very pleasant shooting experience.

Leicas are not unique in having those qualities, but they are still very rare and appreciable qualities.

I don't think there is anything special about people who use Leicas, or any other brand really.

 

[FrozenInTime]

A serious ( really ) Digital Rev video : Why is Leica Unique ? http://youtu.be/Ykuy4qYip1U

 

[redisburning]

it's a simple, well made camera. nothing special about Leica IMO. well, other than the fact they are the only people who do it 35mm.

the Japanese, again IMO, do wrongly what Leica does not bother with. however, I don't think Leica is alone. there are lots of cameras I think are in the same tier; any Arca Swiss (which frankly I think makes a Leica look rather pedestrian in it's execution), Sinar's higher end cameras like the Norma and P series, Hasselblad's non-automated V series, etc.

Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, etc. still suffer from a Japanese trait where their middle class perceives luxury as being a million features. And frankly, any dSLR camera, even a cheap one, is a luxury good (the vast majority of people get by with a cellphone or a point and shoot). but it's aimed at the same people, so you get cameras which I think are tacky and gadgety with true "Ive given up on life" features like autofocus, in camera correction, etc.

I have a Leica M2 on which I use a 50/2. Coincidentally, I also have an Olympus system, and I have an OM-2sp on which I use a 50/2. I really like both lenses. But the OM-2sp, which I want to point out is like an OM-4 with less features, is still gadgety, finicky and hideous by comparison. it's not that Leica has some magic fairy dust, it's just the Japanese do it wrong, and they make up the vast majority of the market. The next segment after Japanese cameras is Leica/Zeiss, seeing as medium and large format represent an absolutely minuscule market.

look, I have no doubt that if Canon made a 5,000 dollar 50mm lens it would be as good as the 50 Lux ASPH, but if a 1Dx cost 10,000 dollars it would still be a 1Dx.

 

[Duane Pandorf]

I'm new to Leica and have never shot with a film Leica but only a digital version the M-E. the reason I'm enjoying shooting with a digital Leica M is its simplicity, case construction size and form, the wide variety of lens choices and many that have no equal in quality in any other format.

Of course the pictures the camera can make is up to how the operator is able work the camera.

 

[Ansel]

For me its the small form factor and the lenses.

 

[lonemantis]

A serious ( really ) Digital Rev video : Why is Leica Unique ? http://youtu.be/Ykuy4qYip1U

I follow DRTV pretty closely, so I've seen that before. I think it's definitely notable that Leica can make someone as sarcastic and goofy as Kai wax poetic for 8 minutes!

I saw a similar thread over at LUF that inspired similar poetic statements. It seems like this is far more common with Leica than any other camera brand.

 

[Shade]

What makes it special is its lens, and the way to use the rangefinder mechanism on a digital camera is a unique and very good experience to me..

 

[marcr1230]

tangible:

Simple and quiet operation
high quality build and excellent optics
durable equipment
Same lens mount for 60-70 years (no obsolescence of equipment)
rangefinder focus with it's advantages and faults.

intangible
comfortable feel in hand
leica aura and mystique

 

[ferider]

I'm a devoted Leica film camera user. I have some Leica lenses, but all designed by a team that has long disappeared.

The modern Leica brand means nothing to me. IMO, the M7 was the last Leica designed for professionals.

Roland.

 

[Godfrey]

I have been working with Leica RF cameras since 1969, starting with Barnacks right up to the M9. What makes the bodies "special" are their excellent build quality, general reliability, and simplicity in operation. They are not alone in producing these qualities in a camera, but they are the most consistent over the decades and through the many different models produced.

Leica lenses are "special" due to their build quality, rendering (or drawing) characteristics, and overall performance. Again, they're not alone in producing these qualities in a lens, but they are the most consistent over the decades and through the many many generations of lenses they've produced.

Whether you think of Leicas as beautiful is an aesthetic judgement ... I like function more than form, and functional things that work simply are beautiful to me. Leicas are wonderfully utilitarian devices that function simply and well, thus they are beautiful. (Hasselblads are also in this same class.) Older Nikons are too.

Relating how Leica is special and casting that as something which determines the character of their owners is a mistake. People buy Leicas for all the usual reasons. They happen to be expensive, which means that some people have a chip on their shoulder about them because of the price, and some people desire them for the status that being able to afford them might embue. Others buy them because they work well. It's mostly horsepucky to think of Leica owners as special because the cameras are special. In the end, it's the photos that count. The photographer is first, the equipment is secondary, the price and the status are irrelevant.

G

 

[lonemantis]

I'm a devoted Leica film camera user. I have some Leica lenses, but all designed by a team that has long disappeared.

The modern Leica brand means nothing to me. IMO, the M7 was the last Leica designed for professionals.

Roland.

There's definitely a noticeable shift from professional to amateur use over the last few decades, I wonder why that is?

Relating how Leica is special and casting that as something which determines the character of their owners is a mistake. People buy Leicas for all the usual reasons. They happen to be expensive, which means that some people have a chip on their shoulder about them because of the price, and some people desire them for the status that being able to afford them might embue. Others buy them because they work well. It's mostly horsepucky to think of Leica owners as special because the cameras are special. In the end, it's the photos that count. The photographer is first, the equipment is secondary, the price and the status are irrelevant.

G

Perhaps to clarify what I meant by the users being "different" or "special", does it say something about the character of people who would buy an expensive, minimalist camera, whether they are a good photographer or not?

 

[ferider]

There's definitely a noticeable shift from professional to amateur use over the last few decades, I wonder why that is?

High quality CaNikon digital cameras and change in the photo journalism profession.

Perhaps to clarify what I meant by the users being "different" or "special",
does it say something about the character of people who would buy an expensive, minimalist camera, whether they are a good photographer or not?

Speaking for myself, unfortunately not. Whether I use a 50$ camera, or a Leica, the photos will look the same ...

I often have much more fun with the Leicas though.

 

[xayraa33]

There's definitely a noticeable shift from professional to amateur use over the last few decades, I wonder why that is?




Perhaps to clarify what I meant by the users being "different" or "special", does it say something about the character of people who would buy an expensive, minimalist camera, whether they are a good photographer or not?

Pros now use digital cameras that serve their purpose better and use brands of cameras and lenses that are more versatile and cheaper to buy then most of anything by today's Leica.

Leica has found a different yet very profitable market for their gear.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I agree with Roland.
The Leica I love is the marque of the age of the M4. The lenses created by Dr. Mandler. Slide rules and near-maniacal mechanical genius. It is a relic of a time when the world was not disposable. You bought an item to use and if it was a durable luxury item (like a Leica or Contax camera or a Bulova or Rolex watch or Mercedes 190) it would be used by you till the end of your life then passed on to be used even more.
No such thing these days.
Mercedes still has amazing service for their customers but the vehicles just aren't the same.
I'm sure Rolex still makes an amazing product but since I wear a modern Citizen and only dream about owning a Rolex timepiece, I couldn't tell you.
Contax is gone.
Leica is still around but it is now more of a luxury good marque with less durability, and more easily disposed of.
No one would think of buying a digital Leica to pass on to their children or grand-children because the technology will change and they will become obsolete. The film Leica will still be working long after the lights go out.
So my nostalgia is for a time when durable goods were DURABLE. No outsourcing. Hand made. Hand adjusted. Built for several lifetime's worth of use.

Phil Forrest

 

[sepiareverb]

Exceptional lenses and simple cameras. Compact dimensions don't hurt.

 

[sepiareverb]

So my nostalgia is for a time when durable goods were DURABLE. No outsourcing. Hand made. Hand adjusted. Built for several lifetime's worth of use.

Photography has changed from a craft process to an electronic one, that is the reason why the modern cameras are what they are. Every digital camera is 'obsolete' in a few months time if one buys into the notion that they are when something different comes along. And I don't see any D600 or 5D running any better in 30 years time than an M9.

Did TMAX make Tri-X obsolete? Nobody seems to think so.

 

[mfogiel]

It is a bit like the Porsche Carrera effect - you get a product, which has been refined for a specific functionality over a very long time. The result is high reliability and high "user synch" effect.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

If you take a peek at the advertising campaigns Leica did since the beginning you'll see that a lot of this hype was created by marketing specialists. To me, at least, that explains "the mystique" behind Leica products. Their ad men were good at selling status more than quality... Not that there's anything missing there in terms of quality, mind you...

 

[f16sunshine]

meh..

meh..

It's the rangefinder first and foremost if you are a shooter.
Otherwise what's special is STATUS!
I don't own any Leica M lenses at the moment. Simply put.... They are not "worth" the money for the IQ provided.
Where other M mount manufacturers (CV, Zeiss) actually sell lenses that are worth the money for the IQ provided.
Leica simply does not deliver value for $'s required to enter.
I bought a latest version 50mm Summicron new in 2005 or so for $1300 via promotion.
Why is it nearly double that 8 years later?
It's not better now.
It's a strange world we live in where status is determined by
"How much can you spend?" vs "How much can you get?"

What's special about Leica? ...... It's a Leica 😛