Why Leica Matters

[Gareth Rees]

Originally Posted by Emile de Leon
. . . The digital Leica..will be middle aged at 2 to 3..old at 5..and most likely dead soon after..if you can get repair parts or batteries for it... .

Surely they'd now be going out of business, if this were true.

 

[Brian Atherton]

Emile de Leon,

Methinks you doth protest too much (to paraphrase).

 

[David Hughes]

Oh dear!

Posted by Emile de Leon
. . . The digital Leica..will be middle aged at 2 to 3..old at 5..and most likely dead soon after..if you can get repair parts or batteries for it...

My old Leica Digilux 2 will be 11 years old soon and I'm still using it. Worse still, I've still got the original battery in it.

Regards, David

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

My old Leica Digilux 2 will be 11 years old soon and I'm still using it. Worse still, I've still got the original battery in it.

Those things don't half hold their price. They seem to fetch £400 or so at the moment, which isn't bad for a camera with a 5MP sensor. Too rich for my taste at that money! 🙂

 

[hepcat]

When I got my first Leica M camera and lens, I got them for a whole laundry list of reasons.

Things that on that list were:
Lenses are second to none
Legendary durabillity/reliability
Outstanding performance in low light
Exceptionally quiet operation

Things that were not on that list were:
Status
What other people will think
MP and 50 Summilux were endorsed by Consumer Reports as "best buys."

And those are exactly the reasons one should buy any camera. And those were exactly the attributes marketed by Leitz in 1969:

Leica advertising over the years has largely centered on the competence of the equipment... the optics, reliability, and ease of use, but every once in a while there was a little snippet of "exclusivity" tossed in:

These old ads are interesting: http://www.vintag.es/2012/10/vintage-leica-advertising.html

 

[hendriphile]

"Why is Leica so ****** expensive?"

"Why is Leica so ****** expensive?"

In 1960 a new Leica M3 cost about $260 (I have the sales receipt from Kuhn Photo in Germany).

In 1962 my dad bought a new VW Beetle for $1000, also in Germany, so apples-to-apples. A new Beetle in the U.S. today costs ~$25,000 (or more, depending on options). So a "fudge factor" of ~25.

$260 X 25 = $6500. A new Leica ME costs $5450 at Adorama.
Anecdotal, sure. But even if the fudge factor is significantly off, it makes the point.

BTW I've used Leica since 1980, and the M3 with every non-accessory focal length Leitz lens (35, 50, 90, and 135-mm) cost a total of $1250 (second-hand). Expensive, perhaps, but also frugal considering its efficient performance over the years.

 

[sig]

Compared to a space ship a leica is dead cheap, of course compared to other cameras they are expensive. That is the main reason Leica is perceived as the Hermes bag in the camera world. And Leica themself do not want to change this, they are making a lot of money with this image.

However, owning a leica does not make you a 'dentist', it just makes you a owner of a leica. And if it dents your image sell it.

These 'why leica matters, why i use leica, why leica is not expensive' and so on threads always makes me think that a lot of people need to justify spending and assure the world that they are not dentists 🙂

 

[noisycheese]

Good photographers (and decent people) rarely snipe at Leicas. They don't need to.

I don't think I've seen many people sniping at Leicas or any other make of camera, if I understand the use of the word "snipe" in this context. What I have seen is a clash over perceived values.

As to the causes of these clashes? I think that individuals on both sides make statements that are, in my opinion, intended to inflame people of the other group. From one side there's the "dentist" comment, which we recently saw nicely inverted in an amusing thread here, while from the other side we see comments along the lines of "when you learn to take real photos, you'll be able to understand why real photographers use this camera".

I think that there are hot-heads on both sides and perhaps the moderators might be more proactive in discouraging the comments that are inflamatory. It's one thing to say how pleased you are with a particular camera. It's quite another to claim that anyone, who uses a different type of camera, doesn't know what they're talking about.

Perhaps there's not a lot of Leica hating going on here, but it's out there, on other sites. It's childish really. As best as I can tell, this irrational Leica hatred evolves more or less along the following progression -

1: Spoiled (but not rich) hipster sees online article about Leica M9 (or MM or S2 or whatever) camera;

2: Spoiled (but not rich) hipster [SBNRH] goes into withdrawal, simply has to have said camera;

3: SBNRH reads review/article further, sees price of said camera, promptly soils himself and passes out;

4: SBNRH regains consciousness, realizes he has soiled his underalls and flies into a rage over that and the price of the Leica M9 (or MM or S2 or whatever) camera because his economic station has denied him what he has decided he is (self) entitled to; :bang:

5: SBNRH is imbued with blind hatred for all Leica cameras and Leica owners/users.

Don't be "That Guy." Don't make yourself miserable wanting what you can't have. Get a nice used film Leica and a lens that you can afford, go make some photographs and have some fun. 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . These 'why leica matters, why i use leica, why leica is not expensive' and so on threads always makes me think that a lot of people need to justify spending and assure the world that they are not dentists 🙂

Another reason is that many people (me included) get tired of being told, in effect, "Only rich idiots buy Leicas. If you were any good you could/would use [insert camera here]."

I'm certainly not rich; I don't think I'm often an idiot; and as for which cameras good photographers use, I think it's probably quite a wide spectrum. Clearly it does not exclude Leicas.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Mcary]

Don't be "That Guy." Don't make yourself miserable wanting what you can't have. Get a nice used film Leica and a lens that you can afford, go make some photographs and have some fun. 😉

That's what I did but I got an M8 in excellent condition from another forum member 🙂

 

[airfrogusmc]

Compared to a space ship a leica is dead cheap, of course compared to other cameras they are expensive.

I would say if you compare digital Leica M to the top of the line Digital Canon and Digital Nikon they are about the same.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Another reason is that many people (me included) get tired of being told, in effect, "Only rich idiots buy Leicas. If you were any good you could/would use [insert camera here]."

I'm certainly not rich; I don't think I'm often an idiot; and as for which cameras good photographers use, I think it's probably quite a wide spectrum. Clearly it does not exclude Leicas.

Cheers,

R.

In fact there is along list of great photographers that do and have used Leica's. If it's a camera that gets the shots you need consistently and helps you express your vision then it is indeed that right tool. And it is far better for me on the streets than a big DSLR period.

 

[Roger Hicks]

In fact there is along list of great photographers that do and have used Leica's. If it's a camera that gets the shots you need consistently and helps you express your vision then it is indeed that right tool. And it is far better for me on the streets than a big DSLR period.

Ah, yes, but like me, you're a rich idiot and a rotten photographer...

What do we know? All we do is use our Leicas to help us earn a living. We clearly know far less than people who have never used them or don't get on with them.

Cheers,

R.

 

[hepcat]

Ah, yes, but like me, you're a rich idiot and a rotten photographer...

What do we know? All we do is use our Leicas to help us earn a living. We clearly know far less than people who have never used them or don't get on with them.

Cheers,

R.

Clearly. 😀

 

[airfrogusmc]

Ah, yes, but like me, you're a rich idiot and a rotten photographer...

What do we know? All we do is use our Leicas to help us earn a living. We clearly know far less than people who have never used them or don't get on with them.

Cheers,

R.

LoL.......

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Don't be "That Guy." Don't make yourself miserable wanting what you can't have. Get a nice used film Leica and a lens that you can afford, go make some photographs and have some fun.

I think that exemplifies the point I wished to make, when I made up the "when you learn to take real photos, you'll be able to understand why real photographers use this camera" quote. I'm sure you didn't mean your statement as a taunt but the assumption it appears to make, that everyone should want a Leica|Nikon|what-have-you, is, I think, the trigger for the reaction.

We all need to remember that this isn't a conversation, where we can see one another's expressions and body language. This is, entirely, an abstract, written exchange and what is harmless or even amusing in person, or perhaps even on an audio link, may be interpreted otherwise in this limited bandwidth.

By coincidence, the BBC's Radio 4 "You and Yours" programme, at lunch-time today, was concentrating on Children and the internet. One contributor was making that very point.

 

[David Hughes]

Um, dare I say that I'm in favour of the rich who buy Leicas and then sell them on after a couple of years (and probably films) because it means I can find a nice one second-hand. I got my first, a CL, that way and was surprised that there were second-hand ones about when they were still selling the new ones and it only had a short production time. It's like those people who trade in their car every six months...

Regards, David

 

[YYV_146]

In 1960 a new Leica M3 cost about $260 (I have the sales receipt from Kuhn Photo in Germany).

In 1962 my dad bought a new VW Beetle for $1000, also in Germany, so apples-to-apples. A new Beetle in the U.S. today costs ~$25,000 (or more, depending on options). So a "fudge factor" of ~25.

$260 X 25 = $6500. A new Leica ME costs $5450 at Adorama.
Anecdotal, sure. But even if the fudge factor is significantly off, it makes the point.

BTW I've used Leica since 1980, and the M3 with every non-accessory focal length Leitz lens (35, 50, 90, and 135-mm) cost a total of $1250 (second-hand). Expensive, perhaps, but also frugal considering its efficient performance over the years.

Leica lenses hold their value well. Films bodies too, but the same cannot be said for digital. I did the math awhile ago, most Mandler lenses actually outrun US inflation by a bit, some (Noctilux) by a lot. I'm a bit young for this thought experiment, but if you were smart enough to get a few dozen Nocts and 75luxs back in 1995 and locked them up in a vacuum pack until 2014, you'd be quite successful by investment standards.😀 That's not why I use Leica, but it makes me feel better when I reach for my wallet.

Also, if you want more precise stats. $260 in 1960 is $2064 in 2013 dollars, purchasing power equated. The original 50mm Summilux is $240 in 1962, or $1851 in 2013. Not as much as a digital M, but prices are at least comparable to a mint used M7. The lenses have become considerably more expensive, though...A like-new, accessory complete and boxed v1 50lux is a bargain at $1800.

 

[YYV_146]

I would say if you compare digital Leica M to the top of the line Digital Canon and Digital Nikon they are about the same.

No. There is a lot more cost packed into a D4 than an M type 240. The difference is even greater if you compare the M-E to a D3 or 1D mk4.

With Leica you are paying for quality and the user experience, but comparing a M to a high-end DSLR is apples to oranges. You can't really compare them, since the person who buys one would likely never touch the other.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Um, dare I say that I'm in favour of the rich who buy Leicas and then sell them on after a couple of years (and probably films) because it means I can find a nice one second-hand. I got my first, a CL, that way and was surprised that there were second-hand ones about when they were still selling the new ones and it only had a short production time. It's like those people who trade in their car every six months...

Regards, David

Dear David,

We are all in their debt!

The only problem I have is with the assumption that all Leica buyers are rich idiots, even those who (like you and I) have bought far more Leica cameras and lenses second hand, sometimes at some sacrifice, rather than new equipment of any kind.

Cheers,

R.