What is special about Leica?

[giellaleafapmu]

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?

When the watch company Audemars Piguet introduced the model called Royal Oak designed by Gerald Genta which was made of steel brushed and polished in many different ways and had a flat JeagerLeCoultre movement and a lot of details which made it super expensive they had an edverticement which sayd: "Introducing steel at the price of gold!".

Something similar comes to mind when talking about Leica... 😉

No, seriously I have three Leicas plus the processing lenses and I used to have more of them when I used the R system but just could not resist the temptation to tell this joke... To me Leica cameras don't have anything special, lenses...well that's a completely different story! 😀

GLF

 

[lonemantis]

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.

That was quite a good read Roger, thanks for posting that. Part of what I find so interesting about the Leica community is its diversity, which I think this thread illustrates. It seems likely that just as many people shoot them as collect them, which is more than you can say about most other systems. There clearly exists an appreciation for usability and design, as well as historical value.

Anyway, thanks a lot to everyone for your responses! It's given me plenty of ideas to consider. In the meantime, let's all keep shooting!

 

[michaelwj]

... the price is quite out there, just comparing specs vs specs.

Its the only camera I've ever used which is so much more than the specs. You can adjust the aperture, shutter speed, focus, and push the 'go' button, what more do you need?!

I can see the dream spec sheet now;
Aperture - tick
Shutter speed - tick
Focus - tick
Shutter release ('go' button) - tick

Sounds like the prefect camera!

i know lots of other camera makers make cameras that can do this, but they always put some 'feature' on it that gets in the way of the dream spec sheet, like shutter disabled until focus achieved, go into the menu blah blah blah.

Michael

 

[mark18068]

I don't have a lot of Leica experience having recently purchased my first (M6TTL). Having said that, my first roll included what was probably the best photograph I've ever taken. Coincidence or luck? I don't know. I do know that I am in love with my Leica though!

 

[JoeV]

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

That was very insightful, thank you for sharing.

~Joe

 

[batey_1020]

For me its simple, compact compared to all the DSLR crap i carted round for years. The simplicity of using primes only, take a step forward or step back. It just made photography fun for me again. And if it ever looses its fun ill find another camera i enjoy because at the end of it all magority of us here do it for fun.
My M4 has enormous sentimental value to me and my family and i think about that every time i release the shutter or even frame an image.

 

[David Hughes]

Its the only camera I've ever used which is so much more than the specs. You can adjust the aperture, shutter speed, focus, and push the 'go' button, what more do you need?!

I can see the dream spec sheet now;
Aperture - tick
Shutter speed - tick
Focus - tick
Shutter release ('go' button) - tick

Sounds like the prefect camera!

i know lots of other camera makers make cameras that can do this, but they always put some 'feature' on it that gets in the way of the dream spec sheet, like shutter disabled until focus achieved, go into the menu blah blah blah.

Michael

Hi,

I've lots of P&S's and SLR's that meet this spec. and no menus either. Most of them came from charity shops and cost a pound or two but never very much. That's something we can thank digital for...

Still, even though it isn't a spec. that's exclusive to Leica I have to say that there's a lot that's good about it. And it puts the Cosmic Symbol up there with the Leica and that can't be a bad thing.

But, I do like some of the innovations that came with electronics. Having the meter in the camera was one good thing, displays of shutter speed and aperture in the view-finder are a bonus and I'm not going to complain about zoom lenses either.

Regards, David

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Part of what I find so interesting about the Leica community is its diversity, which I think this thread illustrates. It seems likely that just as many people shoot them as collect them, which is more than you can say about most other systems. There clearly exists an appreciation for usability and design, as well as historical value. . . .

Precisely. It always amuses me when people say, "Yeah, but far more Leicas are bought by amateurs than by professionals". Exactly the same is of course true of Canons, Nikons or almost any other marque you can name. Even ultimate 'pro' cameras such as Linhof historically had 50% amateur buyers, without whom they would have found it hard to survive.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Haigh]

My old M4-P is light quite unobtrusive ( very quiet shutter ) tough and still silky smooth mechanics. It is simple to used thus fast.It sits in my hand really well. I could and do use Bessa R bodies but the key element is always Leica lenses. Even now the results from them are thrilling to print in my darkroom. Good luck with your research.

 

[edge100]

I had the same question before I bought my M6. Now I know; it became evident the very first time I wound on some film and fired the shutter.

The sense of quality comes through as soon as you pick the camera up. Then you feel the utter smoothness of the film advance, and then the tactile feel of the shutter release. It has to be experienced to be appreciated.

Then you look through the VF, and the coincident image just springs into view; far clearer than my R3A ever was.

Then you get the film back, and notice that the frames are absolutely perfectly spaced, oh, and you've gotten 38 images on that 36 exposure roll.

The experience is like nothing else. It's just a perfectly* executed mechanical camera.

* - well, not perfect. The VF flare on the M6 is sometimes troublesome, and I wish it had a shutter lock.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I had the same question before I bought my M6. Now I know; it became evident the very first time I wound on some film and fired the shutter.

The sense of quality comes through as soon as you pick the camera up. Then you feel the utter smoothness of the film advance, and then the tactile feel of the shutter release. It has to be experienced to be appreciated.

Then you look through the VF, and the coincident image just springs into view; far clearer than my R3A ever was.

Then you get the film back, and notice that the frames are absolutely perfectly spaced, oh, and you've gotten 38 images on that 36 exposure roll.

The experience is like nothing else. It's just a perfectly* executed mechanical camera.

* - well, not perfect. The VF flare on the M6 is sometimes troublesome, and I wish it had a shutter lock.

No! No! Anything but that!

But then, as my mother always said, one man's fish is another man's poisson.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

In answer to the OP's question, in my opinion, nothing.

I've owned an M6, M6TTL and M4-P over the years and I've enjoyed using all of them in their own ways. If they are "special" in any way, it's probably the exceptional quality and dimuinutive size of their lenses.

As far as ergonomics is concerned, they are a simple box with minimal controls. This is great in most respects but they always felt a bit difficult to hold for someone with hands the shape / size of mine. I prefer something to get hold of that doesn't feel like I'm not likely to drop or lose grip of it.

I really don't like the film loading method but I put up with it as a trade-off for thequality of build, reliability and exceptional lenses.

Their prices are ludicrous - even second hand. But, if you want one - especially a good, un-marked one - there's the price. Take it or leave it. Compared to my more functional / workaday (but perfectly well formed and reliable) Nikon F2 and F3, Leica's make no commercial sense.

I don't have a Leica these days and, though I miss the cachet of having an M6 over my shoulder, I'm much more at ease with SLRs and MF. But that's only me. I don't expect many / any to agree. I view them as a great tool but one that tends to be treated with too much reverence which, as a result, creates this air of mystery.

If you can afford one, try one - you may love it. If not, don't feel too upset as there's a lot of really good kit that will help you take excellent photos - without the need for the little red dot.

 

[hepcat]

Despite those who would publish charts and graphs to illustrate why "this" or "that" is superior, photography is a black art in which there are no absolutes. Photography is merely the pursuit of the permanent capture of light, and every individual who practices photography has the ability to do it in any manner they see fit, if they know how to do that.

Practitioners of this black art eventually, after the basics have been mastered, find nuances to be exploited.

There are products in the world that do the job; then there are products that allow for nuanced interpretations with little or no muss or fuss. Leica falls into that latter category, and that's the essence of why those who own them are so fanatical about them.

The rest of the manufacturers offer cameras with automatic features that must be defeated, programmed, tweaked, or personalized. Leica allows you to quickly make images as you see them without having to fight with the camera... again, provided that you understand the mysterious and nuanced workings of this black art.

The reason pros moved on from Leica thirty or forty years ago was advertising... and customer service. Leica was all but dead. Canon had pro services for their cameras that were unbeatable in the '90s. And the last holdouts (me) moved over to Japanese DSLRs in the mid 2000s when there were no Leica digital bodies on the horizon and I needed digital to stay competitive.

There are some of us "pros" who are back in the fold, but most are too heavily invested in DSLRs of the Canikon variety to unload their equipment and move back. I was fed up with automation and fortunate in that I was in a position to move back to Leica.

Shooting a coincident rangefinder camera is a different experience from shooting an SLR and it's very difficult for some photographers to make the mental leap required to use a rangefinder camera to its fullest. For me it's easy because I started on a Leica forty years ago, and then had to make that mental leap from shooting with a rangefinder camera to shooting SLRs early on. And I've never been as comfortable shooting an SLR as I am a coincident rangefinder camera. For folks used to significant levels of automation, shooting a manual camera (especially a manual coincident rangefinder camera) requires them to actually learn the properties of light, plane of focus, DOF, and manual exposure, and then make their own decisions about the best way to capture the image, and then transfer that knowled to the camera settings. In other words, moving to a manual rangefinder camera requires the owner to actually learn the basics of photography and some folks just aren't up for that either.

There are a million shades of gray in every facet of this black art we call photography, and Leica still allows the photographer explore all of them without being trapped into just capturing the few shades of gray that the programmers thought you'd want to capture from the relative safety of a single perspective with a long zoom. Shooting with a Leica coincident rangefinder body and primes means moving to explore different perspectives. It's a very different working style that develops.

The Leica "mystique" (at least in the M line) assumes that, in order to make useable images, that the a user is photographer. That's what makes Leica unique among today's camera offerings.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Despite those who would publish charts and graphs to illustrate why "this" or "that" is superior, photography is a black art in which there are no absolutes. Photography is merely the pursuit of the permanent capture of light, and every individual who practices photography has the ability to do it in any manner they see fit, if they know how to do that.

Practitioners of this black art eventually, after the basics have been mastered, find nuances to be exploited.

There are products in the world that do the job; then there are products that allow for nuanced interpretations with little or no muss or fuss. Leica falls into that latter category, and that's the essence of why those who own them are so fanatical about them.

The rest of the manufacturers offer cameras with automatic features that must be defeated, programmed, tweaked, or personalized. Leica allows you to quickly make images as you see them without having to fight with the camera... again, provided that you understand the mysterious and nuanced workings of this black art.

The reason pros moved on from Leica thirty or forty years ago was advertising... and customer service. Leica was all but dead. Canon had pro services for their cameras that were unbeatable in the '90s. And the last holdouts (me) moved over to Japanese DSLRs in the mid 2000s when there were no Leica digital bodies on the horizon and I needed digital to stay competitive.

There are some of us "pros" who are back in the fold, but most are too heavily invested in DSLRs of the Canikon variety to unload their equipment and move back. I was fed up with automation and fortunate in that I was in a position to move back to Leica.

Shooting a coincident rangefinder camera is a different experience from shooting an SLR and it's very difficult for some photographers to make the mental leap required to use a rangefinder camera to its fullest. For me it's easy because I started on a Leica forty years ago, and then had to make that mental leap from shooting with a rangefinder camera to shooting SLRs early on. And I've never been as comfortable shooting an SLR as I am a coincident rangefinder camera. For folks used to significant levels of automation, shooting a manual camera (especially a manual coincident rangefinder camera) requires them to actually learn the properties of light, plane of focus, DOF, and manual exposure, and then make their own decisions about the best way to capture the image, and then transfer that knowled to the camera settings. In other words, moving to a manual rangefinder camera requires the owner to actually learn the basics of photography and some folks just aren't up for that either.

There are a million shades of gray in every facet of this black art we call photography, and Leica still allows the photographer explore all of them without being trapped into just capturing the few shades of gray that the programmers thought you'd want to capture from the relative safety of a single perspective with a long zoom. Shooting with a Leica coincident rangefinder body and primes means moving to explore different perspectives. It's a very different working style that develops.

The Leica "mystique" (at least in the M line) assumes that, in order to make useable images, that the a user is photographer. That's what makes Leica unique among today's camera offerings.

Beautifully put.

Cheers,

R .

 

[rfaspen]

Wow, hepcat. Really well put.

I second what hepcat said!

 

[noisycheese]

...The reason pros moved on from Leica thirty or forty years ago was advertising... and customer service. Leica was all but dead. Canon had pro services for their cameras that were unbeatable in the '90s. And the last holdouts (me) moved over to Japanese DSLRs in the mid 2000s when there were no Leica digital bodies on the horizon and I needed digital to stay competitive.

There are some of us "pros" who are back in the fold, but most are too heavily invested in DSLRs of the Canikon variety to unload their equipment and move back. I was fed up with automation and fortunate in that I was in a position to move back to Leica...

Back in the early 2000 era, I recall the droves "pros" that were heavily invested in the Hasselblad V system who stampeded to dump their V system gear. These cameras and lenses were (and still are) arguably the finest medium format system in the world in terms of durability, reliability and image quality.

These "pros" chucked their vastly superior Hasselblad cameras and lenses in order to jump on the digital bandwagon, letting these magnificent machines go for a song - while sacrificing image quality for speed and losing their shirts in the process.

So in the early 2000s these "pros" could afford to ditch their Hasselblad gear for digital, but now they can't afford to trade digital for film gear - even given the low prices of film gear (used, at least) these days??

Doesn't make sense. 😕

 

[kbg32]

I've driven specific cars, ridden pro bicycles, worked with top notch tools. Once you handle something that is designed specifically for what it is intended to do, without hesitation, becoming part of you, where everything falls in the proper place without having to think where this button or that is, becomes a window to the world....... well....

 

[Roger Hicks]

I've driven specific cars, ridden pro bicycles, worked with top notch tools. Once you handle something that is designed specifically for what it is intended to do, without hesitation, becoming part of you, where everything falls in the proper place without having to think where this button or that is, becomes a window to the world....... well....

Dear Keith,

But, equally, we don't all think/work the same way. I know I'm in a small majority but I really don't like Rollei TLRs. And I've never quite understood those who say that their hands are 'too big' or 'too small' for a particular camera. My wife has tiny hands. Her (former) rheumatologist has huge hands. Both use M-series Leicas equally happily.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Penny Lane]

To me, the simple answer to OP's question is that I don't really know. My IIc/IIIf conversion and my tatty M4 simply hit an undefinable sweet spot. Some things just do that: my bitsa Fender P-Bass does it in music, my old (and sadly at one point too heavily patched & re-patched to save) little BMW 1502 did it for transportation, and my 1964 Pontiac Memomatic, even with the -matic bits removed for some odd reason, does it telling time.

The theme that seems to be in there is 'simplicity', but there are lots of simpler cameras than my Leicas, simpler bass guitars than my P-Bass (granted, not really much simpler...), simpler cars than my late BMW, and simpler watches than my Pontiac, so there must still be something else going on.

Citrophiles often call this 'character'. They happily omit defining whatever they mean by that; most, I suspect, wouldn't be able to tell you what that means anyway.

To be honest, my superstition is that knowing why certain objects hit that undefinable sweet spot would be to jinx them forever. So in spite of all the eloquent answers given here, personally I'm just as happy not knowing what makes a Leica (or any given object) special. I'm inclined to just call it 'character'...

Derk

 

[hepcat]

Back in the early 2000 era, I recall the droves "pros" that were heavily invested in the Hasselblad V system who stampeded to dump their V system gear. These cameras and lenses were (and still are) arguably the finest medium format system in the world in terms of durability, reliability and image quality.

These "pros" chucked their vastly superior Hasselblad cameras and lenses in order to jump on the digital bandwagon, letting these magnificent machines go for a song - while sacrificing image quality for speed and losing their shirts in the process.

So in the early 2000s these "pros" could afford to ditch their Hasselblad gear for digital, but now they can't afford to trade digital for film gear - even given the low prices of film gear (used, at least) these days??

Doesn't make sense. 😕

I chucked MY Hassy system then as well, and it did and still does make sense. Customers were asking for immediate results and digital files. If you said you couldn't do digital, you lost a customer. I didn't have the resources to keep my Canon and Hassy gear and invest in digital too, so the Canon and Hassy gear went down the road to fund the next system. I kept customers and I kept working, and I provided what my customers were after. No, the final product probably wasn't as good, but it was good enough to meet the needs of my customers and I couldn't have done that with a film product.

And there still isn't a market for products from negatives in the commercial world, so there still isn't a reason in mainstream commercial photography to own film gear. I recently bought a Leica M4-P body solely for the pleasure of shooting film for my own work. It'll likely never see the light of day for commercial work. I haven't had a client ask for negative-based products since about 1998.