What is special about Leica?

[hepcat]

the analogy is less to HD than it is to Ducati. Both boast vestigial technology (V Twin engine/mf rangefinder) updated to modern specs. Both place a premium on "handcraft". Both consciously place a price premium on their products to maintain a certain perception as being elite while still being affordable enough to tempt those wanting to move up from the universal japanese motorcycle/camera. Both operate out of boutique stores. Both sell the brand as much as the object.

HD is a dinosaur made for dinosaurs. It is the Exacta Varex of motorcycles - beautiful aesthetically but highly impractical and technologically archaic. Its performance is an afterthought, if that. Ducati, meanwhile, much like Leica, retains the traditional technology yet aspires to current relevance.

The difference is that few outside the motorcycle insiders world even recognize a Duc. I've yet to see "Duc" t-shirts hanging in stores, or cell phone covers made to look like a "Duc."

H-D and Leica have both reinvented themselves to the masses and become house-hold brand names through saavy marketing. It has nothing, unfortunately, to do with the quality of the products; and, (although I still think Moto-Guzzi oozes "classy") like Roger, I'd still go with BMW, thanks. 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

The difference is that few outside the motorcycle insiders world even recognize a Duc. I've yet to see "Duc" t-shirts hanging in stores, or cell phone covers made to look like a "Duc."

H-D and Leica have both reinvented themselves to the masses and become house-hold brand names through saavy marketing. It has nothing, unfortunately, to do with the quality of the products; and, (although I still think Moto-Guzzi oozes "classy") like Roger, I'd still go with BMW, thanks. 😉

Hmmm... Still unconvinced. I don't think Leica ever lost their pole position as "The Rolls Royce of Cameras", so they didn't need to reinvent themselves, whereas H-D has never been regarded as anything more than a big, beautiful, and (for the last 50 years or more) rather sluggish tractor appealing mostly to Americans with limited experience of other motorcycles (and a disregard for corners) or to those of any nationality who buy into the "Attila the Stockbroker" wannabe bad-ass one-percenter fantasy. In the days when there was a choice, many preferred Indians.

Of course the real "Rolls Royce of motorcycles" (without disagreement from Rolls Royce) was the Brough Superior, though Vincent aficionados might disagree, and Hesketh has a strong claim.

Frances used to ride a Goose (V50), and her brother still has a V7. Dunno any Duke owners though, at least not well enough to blag a ride. As you say, they're a bit specialized.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tunalegs]

I don't know if Rolls is the best automotive analogy.
I suppose there are some vague parallels, such as drifting in and out of relevance and ownership changing hands, while somehow maintaining a reputation as being the best.

I think the issue is that other companies made big luxury cars, and made them very well too. Whereas for a long period of time, nobody else was really making something comparable to what Leica was making - a comprehensive rangefinder system.

If we're going to make silly car analogies, then I suggest Morgan as a better fit.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Just imagine how this thread would have run if Leica had gone out of business in the late 80's. They wouldn't have had to jump on the digital bandwagon and compete with all the others and we'd remember them with affection...

BTW, I've a digital Leica with a shutter speed dial, a ring to twist for aperture, another for focus and another for zooming. And no one ever mentions it. I guess it doesn't have enough pixels.

Regards, David

PS And didn't wedding photographers (when they/we used Rollei's) produce the colour or B&W proofs at the wedding? meaning within an hour or two of taking them. Just like digital really, only with a dash to the darkroom instead of the computer.

 

[hepcat]

Hi,

Just imagine ... have enough pixels.

Regards, David

PS And didn't wedding photographers (when they/we used Rollei's) produce the colour or B&W proofs at the wedding? meaning within an hour or two of taking them. Just like digital really, only with a dash to the darkroom instead of the computer.

Wow, not that I ever remember... and there really wouldn't have been much point as the bride and groom typically leave from the reception on their honeymoon for some period anyway.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

It was normal for them to appear during the reception after the wedding, but things may have been different your side of the pond.

Of course, with everyone filled with free drinks the orders came in fast...

Regards, David

 

[David Hughes]

Highly disputable. I'd draw a much closer parallel between Leica and BMW...

Thinking about my pre-war ones and I'd compare them to a push bike as everything was done manually, except the pedalling...

And BMW's and the rest of them have motors and batteries.

Regards, David

 

[hepcat]

Hi,

It was normal for them to appear during the reception after the wedding, but things may have been different your side of the pond.

Of course, with everyone filled with free drinks the orders came in fast...

Regards, David

An interesting difference!

 

[Godfrey]

Well, to the original question "What's so special about Leica?" ...

In 1969 when I was still a sophomore in high school, I acquired a Nikon F Photomic FTn with some help from my uncle. It was my first SLR. A wonderful camera, a beauty to handle and work with. Tough as nails, built like a tank.

Then, one day, I was at the local camera shop and I saw a Leicaflex SL and an Alpa 10d on the shelf. I asked the salesman if I could look at them. Pick them up and hold them, work the controls, and immediately the Nikon F felt like a piece of cheap tin trash.

Now, we all know the Nikon F is a fantastic camera. 42 years on, I acquired another F ... a lovely black plain-prism F from 1971 ... and I still love it. But I just won an auction for a Leicaflex SL, which I've wanted ever since that day in 1969. And today I was over at the camera shop and they have a MINT condition Leicaflex SL in the used department. My F was in my bag. And EXACTLY the same thing happened: the salesman took the SL out of the cabinet, fitted a Summicron 90mm to it and handed it to me—and instantly the Nikon F was reduced to a piece of tin trash. Again.

The M9, the M4-2, even the CL ... when I take them out and use them, and then go back to whatever other camera I was using, the other cameras feel like tin trash. The only one that doesn't is the Olympus E-1 ... It feels for all the world like a Leicaflex SL in digital form.

Not many cameras can do that to me. I think it's rather special.
Can't wait for my Leicaflex SL to arrive... ;-)

G

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

Godfrey: excellent.

 

[David Hughes]

An interesting difference!

Hi,

One other thing, trivial but... When the proofs were delivered the last shots would be taken meaning the bride and groom cutting the wedding cake and toasting each other. The cheapo version was those two last shots (part of the traditional "get it all on a roll of 120 film with a couple spare" script) taken immediately on arrival at the reception but it kept the guests from the food.

I often wonder how wedding photographers survive these days with everyone carrying a smart phone or digital camera. OTOH, they don't expect you to do four or five weddings a day; just one starting with the bride getting out of bed...

Regards, David

 

[leicapixie]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134477

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134477

Different feel to every camera..The Alpa for me was all wrong, weird winding, strange lenses.The Leicaflex heavy and after a friend "bumped" his a major repair bill..
My "F" never felt like trash but a Leica CL really did.
A Leica M feels different from an F. One was fun to use, the latter made the money. I could only afford a few Leica lenses..A whole system for the F. I prefer less..

 

[noisycheese]

The Hasselblad 503cw is a wonderful camera and system - but it wasn't a good fit for me.

I have found that the Leica M film cameras and system fit me like a glove. 😀

 

[Livesteamer]

My M cameras fit my hands well but the real payoff was being able to get the focus just right even in low light. My old 35 1.4 Summilux is also something special. Joe

 

[Timmyjoe]

From the time I was a kid I loved to take pictures. By the early 1990's I had been doing it for twenty plus years and still enjoyed it, but it wasn't quite as magical with the auto focus, auto exposure cameras I was using. Was at the Photo Expo in New York one year and picked up a Leica M6, and all of the magic came back. Fit my hand so beautifully, such a simple operation, aperture, shutter speed and focus. Wasn't until 2000 when I could actually afford to purchase one, and then I got to fall in love with all that Leica glass.

For me, with the film Leica M's, what's not to love?

Best,
-Tim

 

[Pablito]

Interesting observations.

I have three Leica M bodies, and have put thousands of rolls through them. I agree with what many have said about what makes them special; the simplicity, the lenses, being able to see outside the frame lines, etc.

However, I never could get a good grip on them - literally. I've installed the accessory grips, tried them all, settled on the Abrahamsson ones.

But even after all those thousands of rolls, I still have to work to keep the camera steady at slow shutter speeds.

The camera that really fits my hand well, that I can shoot at slow shutter speeds with no effort is the later Nikons with the rounded ergonomic grips, both the film and digital bodies.

For whatever it's worth.