Roger Hicks
Veteran
YYV_146
Well-known
Price of individual components...The mirror is usually the next most expensive thing in a digital camera, next to a sensor. The RF mechanism doesn't cost nearly as much, since there are no electronics involved. The M also doesn't hav autofocus, which saves money - Nikon and Canon spend huge amounts on R&D for phase detection sensors, and the sensor itself is also a chip, which requires fabrication, QC and so on.
What I want to say is just that Canon and Nikon offer a lot more hardware at the same price. Leica offers better quality, but not necessarily better electronics.
Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
I must agree with David's position re used Leica gear. I make it a practice never to buy any camera gear at all unless I am virtually certain I could later sell it on at the same price, and I do not have the cash reserve to buy new Leica gear, even if it were not to depreciate.
Re the "rich idiot" designation. I contend that anyone buying new M-Leica equipment must either be rich, or much more willing to sacrifice more basic needs and wants than I am. The "idiot" part is entirely optional.
Cheers,
Dez
__--
Well-known
That Leica matters for film users is so obvious that there is no point discussing it; that it matters as a digital camera should be obvious when you consider the uniqueness of both the M-Monohrom and the unique color rendition of the M9/M-E, not to speak of the lens quality. The blah-balh-blah of this thread is tiresome at best, including the endless posts on price and the alleged consumerist orientation of Luica users. Granted that RFF is equipment-oriented, it's still unfortunate that threads such as this one get so much more views and responses than threads with M9 pictures, such as the one I started yesterday, M9 Color: Mist of Wiang Pa Pao, illustrating the color rendition of the M9 (shot with the Summicron-35v4).
—Mitch/Bangkok
Chiang Tung Days [direct link for downloading PDF for book project]
—Mitch/Bangkok
Chiang Tung Days [direct link for downloading PDF for book project]
Duane Pandorf
Well-known
Well I'm the "idiot" that's referenced in the first entry here that spent his "life" savings on a simple box that captures light. I guess I shouldn't be surprised about some of the entries. The camera is a just a tool. Its just that I had to spend a little more to get the shooting experience that only the Leica rangefinder provides for me.
I really don't care about what some may say that the only reason I shoot with a Leica is a status thing. But then I've been know to steer a different course than most. Since I don't make my living with my camera I have no reason to worry about how "good" my photographs may be seen by others.
But I'm having the best time I've ever had making photographs with my Leica kit and that's all that really matters. That's why I think Leica still matters.
I really don't care about what some may say that the only reason I shoot with a Leica is a status thing. But then I've been know to steer a different course than most. Since I don't make my living with my camera I have no reason to worry about how "good" my photographs may be seen by others.
But I'm having the best time I've ever had making photographs with my Leica kit and that's all that really matters. That's why I think Leica still matters.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
THe final cost is the final cost and I bought an MM because it wasn't a one size fits all camera and didn't have all the stuff I don't want or use on it. The fact the Leica M used to be over twice what the top of the line Canons and Nikons were and those two are now about same price as Leica makes me wonder which is really overpriced but no one seems to think the only ones dumping 7k on one of them is rich. You are right I would never buy a camera that heavy and with all that automation on it. And those looking for the one size fits all with all the bells and whistle can't get there heads around an MM. But they are about the same price. And yet the Leica owner is the rich boy or poser according to some. My point is there are posers with those big white lenses just like there are those with any brand that wear them like an accessory.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
Well Duane, I'm one of those "idiots," too. As you so aptly put it, "... I'm having the best time I've ever had making photographs with my Leica kit and that's all that really matters."
Hear, hear!
Maybe we need to have a (red, of course) tee-shirt or baseball cap designed and produced that says LEICA IDIOTS, UNITE!!
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
That's rubbish.
I've used both side by side for different jobs. Pick the proper tool for the job.
These days I only use a DSLR but the only brand new camera I have bought in the last 15 years was a Leica M9. I can't say the same about my D100, D2Hs, D2Hs, D2X or D3. All tools that I have used extensively but they offer different characteristics. You can't get a lens on a DSLR that has the look of a Super Angulon, 35 Summilux V2, 35 Summaron, rigid Summicron, Noctilux, and the list goes on.
Yes, the Leica offers a different user experience but that is not just haptics, it is lens selection as well. If you want a certain look, you pick the tool that gives you that look.
As for quality, I've had more problems with my M9 than all the other cameras I've ever owned and used for work combined. That includes an F4 and D100 which survived a tropical storm and a typhoon as well as a D2H that survived a combat tour and a year of working on construction sites. My M9 went back to Leica on day 3 of me owning it. Then it went back two more times in the span of 18 months, a combined down time of 10 months. As a working photographer I just couldn't have gear that unreliable in spite of the fact that I adored the camera when it worked.
Phil Forrest
airfrogusmc
Veteran
20,000 frames through my MM no problems (knock on wood).
Problems with first both of my 5Ds and have had problems with both of my 5DIIs. Shooting NATO here in Chicago over a year and a half ago and had a complete shutter failure on one.
Problems with first both of my 5Ds and have had problems with both of my 5DIIs. Shooting NATO here in Chicago over a year and a half ago and had a complete shutter failure on one.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I think the MM is a very mature product as the issues with the M9 have been noted and wrought out. There was, on this forum and a few others, a list of folks who had issues with their digital Leica M cameras but I don't think the one here is around anymore. Yes, the squeaky wheel gets the oil and I was particularly vociferous about my extraordinarily expensive camera not working properly and the less than stellar customer support I received. Anyway, there were numerous accounts of severe problems with the M9 and M8. I think and hope Leica has tightened things up even more and eliminated the issues.
It *would* be interesting if say, Ralph Gibson's new MM didn't work while he was out on a shoot and there was documentation of it. I would chuckle for quite some time at that.
They are still fantastic cameras but for someone in my position, I just couldn't rationalize keeping it since I needed something more reliable.
Phil Forrest
It *would* be interesting if say, Ralph Gibson's new MM didn't work while he was out on a shoot and there was documentation of it. I would chuckle for quite some time at that.
They are still fantastic cameras but for someone in my position, I just couldn't rationalize keeping it since I needed something more reliable.
Phil Forrest
David Hughes
David Hughes
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Grytpype-Thynne: You do know, Eccles, that you're an idiot?
Eccles: Yesh, but the world needs idiots!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You really believe that a mirror costs more than a rangefinder?
Wow.
And there's an imaging chip in an M, too the R+D of which is spread (so far) over ONE camera model, made in modest numbers.
Cheers,
R.
YYV_146
Well-known
1. No, the mirror is cheap. The electronics that enclose the mirror and ensure its operations is expensive, especially in bodies where the mirror has to operate 9 or 10 times a second. I don't belive that an RF mechanism costs more than the mirror, the motor that drives the mirror, and the additional electronic controls needed as well as the second focusing prism. High-end Canon and Nikon bodies are also not made in large quantities, which adds to the cost.
Consider this. A 1dx has the entire mirror assembly (prism, motor.etc), a second prism, a phase detection sensor, separate metering sensor capable of working with the AF system and viewfinder optics. The M has an entirely mechanical RF system, which is almost identical to those seen on significantly cheaper Voigtlander and Zeiss RFs. Which one would likely be more expensive?
2. Yes, but maestro is shared between the M and the S system. Leica is distributing cost over three cameras instead of one, although how much actual profit the S system generates is debatable.
I also believe that maestro, just like digic, is a long-term development plan, with future models built on current designs. Costs come down a bit if the next 3 or 4 M models will use processing technology derived from today's R&D. Leica may well choose to stack processors like what Canon does today - if that happens, their R&D on the M can last a fairly long period of time.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Maybe we need to have a (red, of course) tee-shirt or baseball cap designed and produced that says LEICA IDIOTS, UNITE!!
This SO proves that Leica owners are snobs and elitists. How DARE you exclude CaNikSonOly idiots!
nrb
Nuno Borges
Leica is for film, not digital.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Phil really called it right here. Leica is NOT a Ferrari, Lamborghini, or jewel-encrusted tiara that have no practical value. I assign no "status" to owning a Leica any more than owning any other flagship working tool. And it is a working tool; nothing more and nothing less.
Leica matters because it is the only company who still builds a coupled-coincident rangefinder/bright line viewfinder camera system. It matters because it is the ONLY camera brand whose entire range of accessories still work on current equipment. It is a tool that is different from every other tool out there. I like using coincident rangefinder/bright line viewfinder cameras and they work better for me than SLRs or mirrorless cameras most of the time in 35mm and digital. I like shooting with primes. Yes, there are primes for DSLRs, but they tend to be big, heavy beasts. I like having lighter-weight manual equipment. Yes, my Panasonic GX1 is lighter and smaller than my M9, and I use it occasionally too, but it is a different tool.
Leica matters, not because of a single feature or attribute, but because it's a system that I'm exceptionally comfortable with and that can, in fact, do nearly anything I need it to do and bring home the image every time. And contrary to popular belief, it CAN do teles and macro; perhaps not as easily or quickly as another tool, but it can do it. The bottom line is that it is a system that works for me and meets my needs better than any other I've used in forty years which is why I keep returning to Leica.
Every piece of gear I own I've bought used and at bargain prices. I have an M9P, an M8, an M4-P, nine lenses, and a Visoflex III and I have less than the cost of a new M and a Summilux 50 tied up in all of my gear.
I am mildly amused at people who assume I'm rich and imply that I'm an idiot for owning and using a tool that works for me. If they must comment negatively, it's their problem not mine. If they're really that shallow, their thoughts are not important to me anyway. If that makes me elitist or a snob, so be it; I feel absolutely no need to respond to their inadequacies. I am, however, always happy to respond to inquisitive folks about why my gear works for me.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Brian Atherton
Well-known
sjones
Established
Exactly, the issue doesn't necessarily center on the comparative expense account for the cameras' guts, but on the final price. The digital M, which is Leica's top end full frame 35mm camera, cost around the same as Nikon's and Canon's top end full frame 35mm cameras.
Yes, I think we all get it; the DSLRs are jam-packed with goodies. But those goodies are irrelevant if you don't need or want them. In the end, no matter how sophisticated and electronically equipped a DSLR is, it will never be a rangefinder. And if one needs or wants a digital rangefinder, the only current option is the Leica M series, and this uniqueness itself constitutes a notable premium.
The point is that someone paying more than US$6,000 to US$7,000 on a DSLR, or one who sees such pricing reasonable for a high-end camera, is really not in position to then paint Leica owner's as chic-driven show offs enslaved to conspicuous consumption.
Moreover, if someone wanted to showoff their goods in a way that's going to attract the general public, not just other photographers, are they going to hang a rangefinder around their neck or a large DSLR strutting a huge telephoto lens?
One would have to be drenched in immeasurable levels of naiveté to think that a good number of photographers don't, in part, buy large DSLRs to flaunt as some type of a suburban status symbol. In fact, numerically speaking, the number of people who use their DSLRs as jewelry is likely much higher than those similarly using a Leica for no other reason than the limited number of Leica users altogether.
But here's the thing, it's not the camera's fault how it is used, abused, or appropriated. If someone uses a Leica or a large glaringly white L lens to announce his or hers materialistic triumphs (and yes, this happens!), it doesn't suddenly render ALL Leica's or white L lenses as ineffectual decoration.
Yet, it just seems that certain people too dismissively target all Leica's as just the accouterments of the ostentatious, as though the cameras could serve no other purpose. To be sure, for such criticism and negative perception, Leica is partly (largely) to blame, as it does push and profit well from its boutique persona...and many of its limited editions even raise the ire of some of the company's most loyal customers. But again, does this mean that a digital Leica M is just a superfluous luxury item that holds no practical value to an earnest photographer? Of course not!
But as always, it gets a little more complicated. The guy flaunting his Leica or John Holmesian L lens might also use these accessories to photograph, and possibly even photograph well. Fashion and industrial design are not mutually exclusive of functionality, and while this might come as a shock, some people, for example, will buy a certain car because a) it will get them from point A to point B, and b) it looks good.
Yes, Leica's are expensive, and yes, celebrities are drawn to the company's name brand (also its small size I would figure), but the Leica M is ultimately a camera, and for those seeking a digital rangefinder, Leica is the only answer (outside the older Epsons). And as long as Leica is the only company making a full frame digital rangefinder, I would argue that in this sense, and perhaps only in this sense, Leica matters.
But really, all camera companies matter, because they provide choice, and diminishing choice is seldom if ever good.