What is special about Leica?

[PhilKaskela]

It's like Apple computers/mobile devices.
Are they the best at any one thing? No, not at all.
But they are the best at what they want to be... a Leicaphile can tell you what that is.

 

[squareshooter]

If you have the right Leica and lens for the type of photography you do, a Leica can be very sweet indeed. I had a 3f which I did not think much of and an M2r which was darn nice. But I do think the cult status is a bit much. There are a lot of other instruments that will do the job, some better.

 

[Pioneer]

What is so special about a Leica? Their history and their lenses.

At one point in their history they were truly at the forefront of the industry. Professionals and artists flocked to them. But they have become a prisoner of their history and they are no longer relevant to anyone but a few well-to-do amateurs and hobbyists.

Of course, that is only my own humble opinion and I am certain there are any number of older, semi-retired photographers that still use Leicas. But not many of the newer breed that are still struggling to make a name for themselves and still put food on the table.

 

[noisycheese]

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.

It's sad to say, but I feel pretty much the same way - with regard to the digital Leica cameras, at least.

Modern technology has made possible great leaps forward in lens design and production which has resulted in significant advancements in image quality, which is a good thing. These refinements are not at issue. The cost cutting measures employed to maximize profit are.

The old school Leica M bodies are much better cameras than the modern day offerings that wear the red dot - even if they do require film rather than a memory card.

The thing that many overlook is that the original company that made M rangefinder cameras was Ernst Leitz Company. If you look at methodology an M3 top plate, it bears the engraving "Ernst Leitz GMBH Wetzlar, Germany." This was the "old" Leica camera company.

The "new" Leica is an entirely different company, worlds apart in corporate philosophy and values from its progenitor. It is sad to see the ignominious path that Leica Camera has been dragged down in recent years by Messr. Kaufmann.

Those who know - Leica repair people with decades of experience - will tell you that the first cost cutting measures began to show up in the M5 cameras. Prior to that, M cameras and lenses were built to last not a lifetime - but two or three lifetimes - because the intent was for them to do exactly that.

I don't think we can say the same for current day Leica cameras - the digital models in particular. Not even the digital M cameras that sell new for $5400 - $7950 USD. A used M3, M4,
M4-2 or M4-P that sells for $800-1200 will outlive a megadollar digital M by a factor of ten.

If you want a Leica that lives up to the standards and reputation of the "old" Leica camera company, do yourself a favor - get an old M camera that has "Ernst Leitz GMBH Wetzlar, Germany" engraved on it.

JMHO, but given the prices that Leica asks for their cameras and lenses, cost cost cutting measures that increase profitability at the expense of quality, durability, reliability and longevity have no place in the equation.

 

[huddy]

Feels great in hand.
Nearly instantaneous shutter response.
Quiet.
Unobtrusive.
Finely crafted (the old film bodies at least)
Aesthetically pleasing.
Excellent lenses.
Rangefinder style shooting.

If these things work for you, a Leica would be the ticket...

 

[Turtle]

I find the same, but in my case it has nothing to do with the lenses and everything to do with the 'flow' in use, including subject engagement.

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

 

[leicapixie]

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

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

A Leica M is a special camera. The older screw models with horrid viewfinders are even more so "Leica".
The camera was designed as a reporter's tool. To document, to report in a easily portable unit. The lenses from the start of Leica were special. The Zeiss lenses often were sharper.
So what is "Special" about a Leica?
The camera if you allow it, if your photographic technique, is more than sufficient, with much usage, will become a part of your eye, your hand and your brain. The camera seems to me and others to possess a special feeling of "soul". No plastic wonder with menus that are endless and most discomforting, impinge on your vision and creativity. Many professionals don't use a Leica, as they did in past. A need for quicker and quicker results has allowed the phone, to become the major tool.
Leica owners are often very good photographers. It's a mutual benefit system.
The Leica system is really very basic.
Photography is basic.
You "see" you frame, you push the button. Done!.

 

[Richard G]

Special? Superlative construction on an ingenious design. The M Leica with its separate automatically lens actuated frame lines, parallax corrected in a bright viewfinder with central rangefinder patch coincident image focussing and visible field beyond the lens framelines, is most supremely represented by the M2, with a single set of frame lines for 35, 50 and 90. But the M9 is no less a Leica, despite the execrable ambiguity of the 50 frame lines.

The simplicity of the Leica allows you to forget about the marvellous machine and get on with the photography. Manual controls, including choosing precisely what is to be in sharpest focus, are the strengths of this seemingly limited machine. The modern autofocus DSLR is superior in many ways, but its strengths are in turn its weaknesses also.

The size of the M Leica, albeit bigger than a screw mount, is a huge advantage, to say nothing of the lenses. The 35 pre-aspheric Summicron f2 is ridiculously small compared to any other f2 lens. A kit of three fast lenses is half the size of two equivalent fast DSLR lenses. Even though my M9 is a bit bigger than my film Ms, it goes with me every day and most places. It is in my hand. I could not walk around at lunchtime with a full frame DSLR in my hand.

The quality of the lenses is very very good. My most recent build lens is the tiny 28 2.8 aspheric, designed with the requirements of the digital sensor also in mind. It is my sharpest lens. And there are wonderful new and legacy lenses that are magical on a Leica: the '50s Leica lenses and some much earlier, and the recent Zeiss C Sonnar 50 1.5.

So the Leica user is triply blessed by the simplicity of controls, size of kit, and quality of the output.

 

[Joosep]

It just feels natural to me.

 

[rivierej]

For me it's the combination of aesthetics (leica does produce beautiful cameras), amazing optical lens and design (the discreet, well constructed yet simple body compared to a clunky dslr). Leica feels good in the hand and has a simple but effective design, no unnecessary buttons! It's much more portable and light and compact than a big DSLR. Yet it feels durable and well built, not plasticy. I like that it was built with care and for life, not for a year or two. I just sling it over my shoulder and hardly notice the weight. It's also just you and the subject, no difficult menus to navigate, complex buttons. Simple yet brilliant design.

I've bought and sold many leica m's and I keep buying them back because it suits my style of photography perfectly and I feel more attached to them than any DSLR or other camera I have. It's like an old trusted friend.

 

[raid]

I view Leica cameras as excellent cameras. Still, there are other excellent cameras out there. I do not view the digital Leica cameras as being on the same quality level as their fim cameras. I love the feel of quality and elegance in my M3 and M6, and I admire the classical craftmanship of the Standard Leica. I use the M8 and M9 because I have Leica mount lenses. I do not want to go to using DSLR cameras.

 

[L Collins]

Those who know - Leica repair people with decades of experience - will tell you that the first cost cutting measures began to show up in the M5 cameras. Prior to that, M cameras and lenses were built to last not a lifetime - but two or three lifetimes - because the intent was for them to do exactly that.

While I agree with the majority of your post, I must take issue with the above statement. The M5 labors under enough misconceptions without having to defend itself against charges it also wasn't built to traditional Leitz standards.

Whatever its faults, subpar construction is not one of them. The M5 was the last of the hand built, hand adjusted M's. It was intended to be Leica's technical and constructive tour de force, an example of everything they had learned over the past 50 years building cameras. It's aesthetics are another matter.

If you talk to Sherry Krauter - a factory trained tech with impeccable credentials and a long history of working on Ms of all variations - she will tell you that the M5 is, in her opinion, the best of the series for build quality and features.

The M4-2, a reissued dumbed down M4 put back into circulation with the demise of the M5, was the beginning of cost cutting measures that ultimately found their way into the M6 and M7.

 

[David Hughes]

Historically they were important although they were not the first to use 35mm film. The classic model II is, imo, everything that was good about the old ones and show up a lot of cameras from the 20's and 30's. And probably later as the model II with a Summitar on it takes a lot of beating. I get a lot of pleasure from using that outfit.

But they were not perfect and others were ahead of them in some respects. I often wonder why they didn't learn from the others.

My youngest Leica lens is about 6 to 7 years old and is not the best lens I have; others of the same age show it up. I shall probably sell it on soon and won't miss it. OTOH, I wish I still had my R5, probably the nicest SLR I've owned in that class.

Regards, David

 

[B-9]

Silly question, simple awnser.
Chicks dig Leica's 😀

 

[--s]

just write "leica", and your thread gets as many answers as naked women get clicks in the gallery. that´s special.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Leica M's are a breed of their own. There are no other similar cameras.

Erik.

 

[airfrogusmc]

An interesting piece by Meyerowitz about framing and rangefinders. Leica in particular.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xumo7_JUeMo

 

[rfaspen]

I think Raid put it nicely. Film era Leica's are just well-built, ergonomic, and accept excellent optics. Later Leica (digital) just aren't the same thing, but I will be getting one because I need a body that will keep me current and use my Leica lenses. Also, the M9 is still the only full frame "rangefinder-style" body out there that accepts interchangeable lenses -- how lucky for me it happens to be M mount. How unlucky its priced as a "luxury item".

So, I keep using film era Leica (screwmount and M). Just love the feel of them.

Oh, and I have other cameras -- about 300 of them -- so I've tried out other brands/systems. Of all those cameras, I occasionally take out film Nikon SLR systems, occasionally a MF folder, and less occasionally, a 4x5 speed graphic. My only digital is an Olympus EP-2. I do like that camera...

 

[sepiareverb]

Also, the M9 is still the only full frame "rangefinder-style" body out there that accepts interchangeable lenses

well, except for the ME, MM and M240...

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's like religion. If you have to ask why, you'll never understand the answers. All the stuff about preferring RFs over SLRs, the lenses, the handling, the continuity, the simplicity, the ease of use (if you don't like relying on automation): it's all true. So what?

You might (or might not) find http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/leicaphilia.html informative or amusing. It was written by an admitted admirer of Leica, but it also contains such observations as The tenth-hand Leica

People who buy used Leicas often trade up to something newer, so that it is quite possible, arguably even likely, for even a 50-year-old Leica to have had 10 owners - and there are plenty of Leicas more than 50 years old. Even though the original owner may have kept it for 20 years, it may have passed through the hands of others who bought it; decided it wasn't for them; and passed it on after a year or two (or less). This is one reason why old Leicas are sometimes held up as 'unreliable'. With a history like this - perhaps used hard for a decade, then relegated to backup and hardly used, then sold on several times, and at some point subjected to a 'CLA' (see above) which did more harm than good - even the finest machinery can develop problems.

It's also worth remarking that 'reliable' has more than one meaning. A camera that works perfectly for 20 years, and then breaks and can't be fixed, is reliable in a different way from one that needs a minor repair after a decade, and maybe major repair after 40 years, after which it's good for another few decades. Which you prefer is a matter of temperament, or engineering philosophy.

Cheers,

R.