Why Leica Matters

Steve M. said:
Why is he comparing a small rangefinder to a big DSLR? Of course the Leica is smaller and simpler. I don't buy any of this. A Nikon FG or Pentax ME Super is as small as a Leica. Depends on the lens (on both cameras). No, those cameras don't have that Leica "feel", but my photographs don't know the difference. Since I have never owned a new Leica anything, and don't shoot digital, it's no big thing if the company goes on or not. I'll be OK either way. A little Bessa R and some old classic glass will give you a nice, small camera that will do just fine. I'd much rather spend my money on film and print making.
Click to expand...

If you don't care about the external intangibles and such of the photographic process, that's fine. But given your somewhat adamant tone, you seem to be stating (and I could be wrong) that just because something is not of concern to you (or your photographs), it should not be of concern to anyone else either.

And frankly, I don't think it's good when any photography-related business goes under, preferring instead that choice in the field remain as abundant as possible, even if it doesn't apply to my specific needs or wants.

My first rangefinder was a Bessa, and I also own a Nikon FM2. In the end, I simply liked the "feel" of the Leicas, and whether this concerns my photos or not is irrelevant, since it concerns my overall photographic experience. Some take a more utilitarian approach (it's just a stinking too), others don't. That's the beauty of choice.
 
Rhodes said:
Just a historical curiosity question. The miniature film (from x to the 35mm) did not existed already as cine-film? And Barnack had the idea of using the 35mm for photography?
Click to expand...

The 35 mm width, originally specified as 1.375 inches, was introduced in 1892 by William Dickson and Thomas Edison, using film stock supplied by George Eastman.Film 35 mm wide with four perforations per frame became accepted as the international movie standard gauge in 1909.
 
daveleo said:
??? Simplicity

How much simpler can you get than my wife's point and shoot cell phone?? or the X100 (set on auto-pilot)?
Or my Konica HexarAF? or Nikon FM3? or Canonet? (if you're doing film)

Love Leica all you want, but "smplicity" is a weird reason to do so.
Click to expand...

M9 has auto WB and auto exposure , but you still have to focus.

My opinion is why not get it right in camera with a WhiBal card and profiles set to different light conditions. Processing is much less .

Oh forgot, profile the camera.

And no camera does auto WB and/or auto exposure correctly anyway including the cell phone.
 
noisycheese said:
One man's thoughts on Leica cameras...

Link: http://blog.duanepandorf.com/2014/01/02/the-barnack-way-why-leica-matters/

This is no different from the time that Oskar Barnack wanted something smaller than the traditional, heavy plate cameras of his time.

Your thoughts, please.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Barnack wanted something smaller than what was currently available that achieved 'good enough' (for an 8x10) images.

btgc said:
For 99.95% of users iphone is WAY easier tool than any Leica is.
Click to expand...

These days, as btgc says, is the iPhone. I've printed perfectly acceptable 8x10s from it, and its way easier, smaller, and more conveinient than a Leica. It is smaller and 'good enough' for most things.

For years after it was introduced, 35mm was a hobby size and was not suitable for professional use. They had 'real cameras' for that. Put in context, this is the iPhone (or similar) these days. Perfectly acceptable for the masses, but not really professional.

I think Barnack would be all over the iPhone.

Don't get me wrong, I love my Leica, but not because its small, convenient, or simple. I love it because of the was you interact with it manually. When it was introduced however, there was no other way to interact with a camera.
The iPhone is small, conveinient and simple, you get no choices. There's just a button.

Michael
 
Which leads me to why I make photographs with a Leica. In a word – Simplicity. Ok, they’re expensive. The cameras and the their lenses. Then again Leica has been making products that require optimum optical performance since 1849.

Why simplicity has to be so expensive...
 
Monochrom said:
Which leads me to why I make photographs with a Leica. In a word – Simplicity. Ok, they’re expensive. The cameras and the their lenses. Then again Leica has been making products that require optimum optical performance since 1849.

Why simplicity has to be so expensive...
Click to expand...
The thing is, Leicas don't have to be expensive.

You can get a good used film M camera for $800-1500 (M2, M3, M4-P, M6) and a good used lens for $500-700 ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-f28-m.htm ). That is less than or equal to the price of a mid-range DSLR.

Of course, new gear form Leica is pretty stiff in the price department. But there are options out there if you want to own and use a Leica M camera.
 
Either it suits you or it doesn't. If it does, either you can find the money or you can't. Discussion of whether it "matters", other than in an historical context, is pure nonsense. It's like the assertion that a DSLR is a "universal" camera, and the Leica isn't. Just about any interchangeable-lens camera that can be hand-held is "universal" if you don't care how well or how badly it performs in a particular application.

Barnack's Ur-Leica wasn't the first still camera to use 35mm film, and the production Leica was a very long way from the first production 35mm camera: there were well over a dozen from the Tourist Multiple (1913) to the Amourette March 1925). Initially the Leica was historically important as the first 24x36mm camera from a well-established maker with the modern control layout and an extraordinarily neat design. See A History of the 35mm Still Camera, The Focal Press, 1984.

Subsequently it was important mostly because it was for over 30 years at or near the forefront of innovation and because it was used by so many great photographers to take so many great pictures. It's still being used to make great pictures today: just not by everyone.

Cheers,

R.
 
Either it suits you or it doesn't. If it does, either you can find the money or you can't. Discussion of whether it "matters", other than in an historical context, is pure nonsense. It's like the assertion that a DSLR is a "universal" camera, and the Leica isn't. Just about any interchangeable-lens camera that can be hand-held is "universal" if you don't care how well or how badly it performs in a particular application.
Click to expand...

That sums things up nicely, from my point of view.
 
Leicas expensive?.... Sure. The lenses especially so. The 501.4 Summilux is $4000, the 501.5 CV is $1000. But far as lenses go it's like buying a $500,000 house against a $150,000 house, cost of entry is high but your $500,000 house is always going to be worth that and more than likely increase in value. OK, Leica M digital bodies wont hold their value like the lenses. But when I bought my M-E last year I said that will do me for the next 10 years (touch wood). How many who decry the cost of the new M will spend more than $7000 over the next 3-4 years upgrading every few months to the latest and greatest. Going from a M6 to a M-E was almost seemless to me, there was no big learning curve. No camera I have ever used has given me such simple joy in use as my Leicas. Cost of entry is high but for me worth every cent.
 
alan davus said:
Leicas expensive?.... Sure. The lenses especially so. The 501.4 Summilux is $4000, the 501.5 CV is $1000. But far as lenses go it's like buying a $500,000 house against a $150,000 house, cost of entry is high but your $500,000 house is always going to be worth that and more than likely increase in value. OK, Leica M digital bodies wont hold their value like the lenses. But when I bought my M-E last year I said that will do me for the next 10 years (touch wood). How many who decry the cost of the new M will spend more than $7000 over the next 3-4 years upgrading every few months to the latest and greatest. Going from a M6 to a M-E was almost seamless to me, there was no big learning curve. No camera I have ever used has given me such simple joy in use as my Leicas. Cost of entry is high but for me worth every cent.
Click to expand...
Dear Alun,

Probably not very many, but that doesn't invalidate your argument. There are so many miserable buggers who never enjoy themselves at anything, and who are never any good at anything, and (above all) who are never really passionate about anything. They therefore whine at the idea of anyone else being unlike them -- let alone at the idea of anyone else saying, "This is worth $X to me and if it's not worth it to you, then just don't buy it, but kindly **** off and stop sniping at me and everyone else who buys Leicas just because you can't take pictures with any of the toys you keep buying."

AFTERTHOUGHT: Message to the same whingers: Some of us regard Leicas as tools not toys, but even if you're going to treat 'em as toys, why not buy GOOD toys?

Cheers,

R.
 
Leicas used to matter, back when journalists, artists and the pioneers of modern photography used them. Now they're luxury items that have priced themselves out of the hands of the creative class. For a camera to become significant, it can't just be "the best", it also has to be accessible to the people who take risks and actively make the future of photography. It isn't anything personal, I would love to have an M9, but Leica does not matter.
 
nongfuspring said:
Leicas used to matter, back when journalists, artists and the pioneers of modern photography used them. Now they're luxury items that have priced themselves out of the hands of the creative class. For a camera to become significant, it can't just be "the best", it also has to be accessible to the people who take risks and actively make the future of photography. It isn't anything personal, I would love to have an M9, but Leica does not matter.
Click to expand...

New Leicas were never affordable for the masses. Those early adoptors of Leica had upper middle class to upper class background and the vast majority of cameras in use were Boxcameras in short very little has changed since the first Leicas the new ones are still super expensive. The only affordable Leica is a second to fourth hand Leica. And Leica matters because it's a different approach to photography (than DSLR, SLR, Evil and Phone).
 
They therefore whine at the idea of anyone else being unlike them -- let alone at the idea of anyone else saying, "This is worth $X to me and if it's not worth it to you, then just don't buy it, but kindly **** off and stop sniping at me and everyone else who buys Leicas just because you can't take pictures with any of the toys you keep buying."
Click to expand...

That I'm not so much in agreement with. I think a large number of people get miffed at what they see as an arrogant attitude held by Leica users towards others and this forum is, I think, sometimes host to examples of that. Perhaps we should all take the view that what we like may not be liked by others and that everyones' opinions are equally valid on this subject?

:angel:
 
Leica Matters ONLY to a Leica owner....:rolleyes:...:D
& the mean spirited snickety Individuals who like to put leica down :eek: :angel:

Its a Big World with a varying array of Companies/Gear to suit lots of Tastes

If leica folded ( which it won't presemtly ) there is soooo much leica Gear on the market
its enough for Moi to play with in this Lifetime.
As for advancing their 'Digital' technology, its makes no Difference to me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom