What is special about Leica?

[aizan]

lots of my favorite photographers use(d) leicas. that's a biggie.

 

[Turtle]

they are the most prevalent manufacturer of analogue rangefinders and the only manufacturer of in production digital ones.

Oh, and they have great lenses (but so does Zeiss and CV).

 

[John Lawrence]

I've used a lot of different cameras over the years, but nothing fits and feels as good to me and my way of shooting as a Leica.

I'm sure I'll be pooh-poohed for saying this, but somehow when shooting with my Leica I always come away with pictures that have just that little bit 'extra' to them than with other cameras.

John

 

[gsgary]

Since buying my 2 M4's and shooting film again my Canon digitals have not seen the light of day, they are just so good to hold and use another thing i love is you can see beyond the frame so is fantastic for street photography

 

[jsrockit]

For me, it is the most elegant and user friendly rangefinder.

 

[L Collins]

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

Very nicely said. My sentiments exactly.

 

[gho]

1. Leitz invented the use of cinematic film for still photography and produced a miniaturized camera, giving photographers a new, more spontaneous way of expression.

2. Miniaturized portable cameras allowed for capturing historical events in front of your eye as they were unfolding, so these cameras were adopted by (not only) photojournalists.

3. Leicas were and are endorsed by major historical and contemporary photographers.

4. Major historical photographs have been taken with Leicas.

5. Leica optics have a good reputation.

6. Film Leica bodies are well designed, simple and well constructed photographic tools.

7. Film Leicas age well under heavy use if cared for.

All people I know who use film Leicas regularly are very passionate about photography.

 

[furbs]

Very nicely said. My sentiments exactly.

Mine as well, and I chose an M4 as my first Leica. In my mind, a film Leica strikes the perfect balance between form and function. Only the controls I want, implemented perfectly. A DSLR may have more applications, but I would rather have a camera that does one thing perfectly than many things passably.

 

[sig]

Cost. They are so expensive that most people can not afford them. They give status and make the few lucky owners feel special.

 

[furbs]

Cost. They are so expensive that most people can not afford them. They give status and make the few lucky owners feel special.

Film Leicas, especially M2s, are not that pricey now. Compared to most photographers who buy a new DSLR every few years, using one Leica for 10 years is much more cost-effective. The disposable technology is really what's expensive, whether people realise it or not.

As a Leica user I don't feel all that lucky or special. I don't own a car but never get jealous of those around me who drive $50,000 automobiles. I don't think they're lucky or special, just that they prioritize their driving experience. I want a very particular camera so I'm willing to pay for it just as they're willing to pay for their cars.

 

[gho]

Cost. They are so expensive that most people can not afford them. They give status and make the few lucky owners feel special.

Frankly speaking, a used Leica film body in good working condition is not much more or even less expensive than a modest digital camera body of today.

And there are some excellent optics out there that cost less than a kit lens for a DSLR.

 

[gho]

... Finally they were the happening...

Where are the shots? 😀

 

[Godfrey]

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

The "SLR Revolution" started in the 1950s. SLRs became less expensive to produce and the camera type has more flexibility than an interchangeable lens Leica RF camera. The cost of manufacturing Leica cameras also rose quite a lot, due to the cost of labor going out of sight. So rangefinder use amongst professional photographers has dropped ... photographers who make a living from their pictures have to be very cost conscious to stay afloat. They need versatility, quality, and low prices. The amateur photographers for whom the choice of camera has as much*or more to do with 'what they like' rather than 'what makes money' who like rangefinder cameras simply stuck with what they had in Leicas.

There's also the digital paradigm shift. It was not possible for a long time for Leica to make an M that worked to their satisfaction with their existing lenses, and no one wanted to buy an M that didn't. Pros have to keep on making pictures to pay the rent, amateurs can do as they please.

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?

No and yes. It doesn't say anything generalizable. It does say that there are some photographers who enjoy equipment quality and prefer a relatively basic camera, void of the many features and conveniences of other cameras. I'm one of those photographers. I don't know that my preference in a camera says anything significant about my character. It does say something about my aesthetics, which tend to the quiet, minimalist side.

G

 

[zauhar]

+1 to Phil's excellent and eloquent statement. The Age of Marketing has destroyed many human values, but so long as we don't forget those values they may one day be resurrected. I am inspired when I see young people who recognize these things, despite years of brainwashing.


Randy

P.S. Sorry, I was actually confused by two threads with similar theme!

 

[dave lackey]

The "SLR Revolution" started in the 1950s. SLRs became less expensive to produce and the camera type has more flexibility than an interchangeable lens Leica RF camera. The cost of manufacturing Leica cameras also rose quite a lot, due to the cost of labor going out of sight. So rangefinder use amongst professional photographers has dropped ... photographers who make a living from their pictures have to be very cost conscious to stay afloat. They need versatility, quality, and low prices. The amateur photographers for whom the choice of camera has as much*or more to do with 'what they like' rather than 'what makes money' who like rangefinder cameras simply stuck with what they had in Leicas.

There's also the digital paradigm shift. It was not possible for a long time for Leica to make an M that worked to their satisfaction with their existing lenses, and no one wanted to buy an M that didn't. Pros have to keep on making pictures to pay the rent, amateurs can do as they please.



No and yes. It doesn't say anything generalizable. It does say that there are some photographers who enjoy equipment quality and prefer a relatively basic camera, void of the many features and conveniences of other cameras. I'm one of those photographers. I don't know that my preference in a camera says anything significant about my character. It does say something about my aesthetics, which tend to the quiet, minimalist side.

G

Absolutely could not agree more with Godfrey!!

 

[Bille]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofocus

 

[icebear]

It is a tool that is designed for a special purpose.
It's not the latest marketing gimmick where there is first the price point and then the engineers
have to cram in all the features needed for the next press release "The all Dxxx with 96MP and 1/4Million ISO".

Of course this has the disadvantage that the price is quite out there, just comparing specs vs specs.
But on the other hand as long as possible a Leica and Leica M lenses in particular will be serviced.
Who is gonna repair and FD or EOS lens ?

 

[roncan]

Leica. My M4 has been with me for about 46 years. It has taught me more about seeing than I can realize at any one moment. What makes it different from the SLRs and other cameras I've owned is that it takes the pictures that are the closest to what my eyes see. If I am looking at a subject that is in a wide field that has depth the Leica can provide accurate depth of field over its entire field of view. I can relate my subject to its environment instantly in the print as I would be able to with my eyes. I have no use for "bokeh"; I don't see that way and I want a camera to capture what I see.

The design of lenses for a range finder camera is less demanding than for an SLR. The SLR lens has to be further from the film plane than an RF lens to make room for its mirror mechanism. The RF camera enjoys lens design simplicity and takes a different picture. To say that a picture taken with the same focal length lens on an SLR is the same as one taken with an RF camera is to say your ability to see is not very well developed.

Another feature of the Leica is its density, its weight. Lighter cameras are hard to hold steady and have required anti shake features. All a Leica requires is a moment of concentration.

I could go on.

 

[shadowfox]

To me, my M4-P is a reliable companion in my travels.

It has nothing to do with "status" because no one in my circle could care less if I shoot with a Leica or a Diana. 🙂

 

[maddoc]

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.

Completely agree. There was the classic "Leitz Wetzlar" Leica that helped building the myth and there is the modern "Leica AG Solms" (Soon moving back to Wetzlar) that emerged from the old company but the products do not have much more in common except the name and the shape of the camera bodies.