Why Leica Matters

I don't buy Leicas for two reasons: Firstly that there's no way I can afford them, and secondly I don't particularly want to. Doesn't stop other people doing so.

If I were given a Leica, I would certainly use it (and be very grateful).

One thing I enjoy about this forum is the people using a wide variety of gear to produce beautiful photographs. What annoys me is the shelf queens pushing the prices up. I used to be in the Mini scene, and drove mine every day, rain or shine. It took a lot of maintenance, but I had that Mini grin each day. I was impressed by the concours competitions, with the lovely shiny cars, but it was the ones that had been driven there which caught my eye, not the trailer tarts. To paraphrase Confucius: A Mini, not driven, is just a heap of metal. A camera, not used, is a paperweight.
 
The camera isn't responsible for the image, the photographer's eye is. Even a Holga will make great images in the hands of someone good. But we all know that. It doesn't make for good arguing back and forth!
 
burancap said:
To try and bring this somehow back to Earth (or at least to the thread) ... I simply disagree. Let us leave it at that.
Click to expand...

That is unfortunate. I am an aficionado of wise quotes, and the one that applies here is "I never learned anything from a person who agreed with me." I was hoping you'd expand on your critical thoughts. I'm not thin skinned, and there's always an opportunity for me to learn something new here.

I am disappointed because I shall not have the opportunity to know now whether you were taking issue with my Ferrari analogy (which in itself is largely irrelevant except in the context of extravagant consumer goods) or with my assertion that Leica owners are inappropriately tagged as "narcissists" for using their cameras. And I draw a distinction between owning a Leica and using a Leica. Unless you advertise that you have a shelf queen, no one will ever know about it. It's only those that get used that draw unwarranted negative attention to the photographer.

The title of the thread is "Why Leica Matters," and I'd assert that they matter because as a working tool, there's nothing else available in a digital body with a coincident/bright-line coupled rangefinder-viewfinder. That's MY preferred way of seeing photos... I can make do with other tools, but I don't have to and I don't perceive the equipment as a status symbol.
 
What really matters to "All of Us" is good photographs we enjoy making. To Duane & the many of you "Leica Matters" because it feels right for you. I should perhaps write a blog post entitled "Bessa Matters" because it is what feels right for me. My Canonet feels really right too, love that little camera. Bottom line is that "Photography Matters" to us all. I don't care what tool you shoot with. Just post your results in the gallery so I can see em. :D
 
Lawrence A. said:
It's always been interesting to me me how much negativity the very idea of Leica elicits....

Other forums I've been on have people very fond of Leica bashing. I don't get it....
Click to expand...

Leica is not "fair," you see. Everything has to be "fair."

Not everyone can afford Leica cameras and lenses. The economically challenged are therefore being discriminated against, marginalized and disenfranchised (or some such nonsense to that effect, according to many if not the majority of Leica haters). :rolleyes:
 
noisycheese said:
Leica is not "fair," you see. Everything has to be "fair."

Not everyone can afford Leica cameras and lenses. The economically challenged are therefore being discriminated against, marginalized and disenfranchised (or some such nonsense to that effect, according to many if not the majority of Leica haters). :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's a good and interesting viewpoint. I have to disagree with you on the "fair" point tho. I'd say that not only is Leica fair; it's a great equalizer. It brings photography down to the lowest common denominator: the photographer. If the image fails, it's because the photographer failed, not automation. We have an entire generation of photographers now who complain when their equipment misses focus, C-AF isn't fast enough, ISO doesn't go high enough, etc ad nauseum. Leica is ultimately painfully fair. If the focus is off, if the ISO wasn't properly taken into account, if whatever goes wrong, with Leica the fault lies solely with the photographer and his choice of lenses. That's as "fair" as it gets. "Here's the camera, go make it work." That's scary territory for those who have never had to learn the basics of image making and who rely on the camera to do those tasks.

I think it goes even further tho. I think, for any of us who have used Leica extensively, that the style of shooting is very different from shooting a DSLR. The skills that users acquire from a DSLR, particularly heavily automated DSLRs, just can't be made to work very effectively on a manual, coupled coincident rangefinder/bright line finder body. The techniques are different. The use of ISO and large apertures is different. The techniques of achieving focus every time are VERY different. What I hear in many posts is the camera isn't that good, especially because it's expensive. It is good. It's just different, and requires an entirely new working style for a photographer to be effective. Having learned photography using an M2 kit and later a KE-7A M4 kit, I had to learn much later how to effectively use an SLR... and never did care for it. I can do it. I just don't care for it. Despite their few limitations, I shoot a rangefinder camera much more effectively.

Approaching shooting a rangefinder camera with the same skill set of an SLR causes photographers all kinds of grief. If they learn how to use their tools effectively, things all of a sudden take on a new and exciting perspective, and new opportunities begin to present themselves. It's getting those folks to understand the different skills required that is the tough part.
 
faberryman said:
Interesting that the topic of your presentation is why we buy Leicas, and not why we use Leicas. Speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
Only if you don't believe that ANYONE uses them, EVER. Some buy them to use: one founding component of the UK Leica Society was the old Leica Postal Portfolios. Some buy them as collectors' items or out of historical interest: the other main founding component was the old Leica Historical Society. Some (God help us all) buy them as investments. Some buy them because they're cute. There may even be some who buy them as status symbols.

Now, when it comes to speaking volumes, which says more: my talk on why we buy Leicas (which includes everyone who buys them), or yours, with its sniffy insistence on ignoring all the other possibilities?

A talk on why we USE Leicas would be perfectly feasible -- several people on this forum have already provided convincing arguments -- but it would not be the appropriate talk for this audience on this day.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
another car analogy

another car analogy

I have used Leicas for the same reason that I prefer to drive an old Mercedes-Benz diesel with a manual gearbox.

Both force the user to be very deliberate in their use. The clutch on a diesel is heavy and they are known to not wear significantly even over 500,000 miles of use. The torque band of the engine is relatively narrow and the horsepower is low. This forces the driver to use more than just speed to get around; it creates a very keen sense of timing where one must know the capabilities of the car in particular situations like merging into traffic or making a turn onto a street with non-stopping traffic.

The windows are fully manual crank-type. There is 100% visibility and the car has no blind spots. The seatbelts are aircraft-style Kangol belts which are non-retractable so the adjustment must be just right for the driver with respect to their body size, seat position, etc.

Like Tom Abrahamsson said in a post about my 1972 220D, the Benz is much like the Leica M2 of cars. Pure and simple. An M4-2 or M4-P would be a W123 chassis like the 1977-1985 E class sedans. An M6 would be the fully loaded S-class from 1972-1991. M7 would be the post 1991 S-class with even more automation. The digital cameras would be the new generation chassis from 1997 on. Incredible cars with a lot of computerized automation.

My M4 sits right around the same kind of utility as my 220D Benz. Maybe it's the gasser model since it has that rewind knob. Like a few courageous folks who have done some epic drives from Scandinavia to the southern tip of Africa in their diesel Benz, I have no hesitation about the incredible capabilities that the M4 has. It doesn't go fast at all but it will get there come hell or high water, so to speak.

I compare the manual film Leica to the high German automobile marque because of their simplicity and reliability. I'll race anyone using a different kind of car to 500,000 miles and I'll win. The same goes for any mechanical Leica. With proper "oil changes" and a minimum amount of abuse, the Leica is a "million mile car" so to speak.

Leica has never made a Ferrari though. Maybe a few fast E and S-class sedans (the R series through the DMRs) but no cameras of racing heritage.

So, the Ferrari analogy was on point but with regard to utility. It's like using a digital CCD body for street photography. It can be done but it's not practical unless one were very eccentric or had a specific purpose.

We're going to get a foot of snow by the end of this storm and I have no doubt that I'll be able to drive my 220D in it quite safely and reliably. All the Ferraris are either garaged or will get stuck in this muck. Again, not practical.

Phil Forrest
 
hepcat said:
That's a good and interesting viewpoint. I have to disagree with you on the "fair" point tho. I'd say that not only is Leica fair; it's a great equalizer. It brings photography down to the lowest common denominator: the photographer...
Click to expand...
I agree with you, hepcat; I was playing devil's advocate in stating the "Leica is not fair" point of view, which IMHO is nonsense.

Hating Leica as a company, Leica cameras or Leica users is as childish as hating the moon because we will in all likelihood never get to go there. :rolleyes:

Your point that Leica is the great equalizer in the world of cameras is a good point. An M camera doesn't do jack for the photographer; he/she has to do it all for themselves.
Aperture. Shutter speed. Focus. The photographer who doesn't know how to effectively manage the fundamentals is at a great disadvantage with an M camera.
Is that the camera's fault? No, the photographer's own ignorance is his enemy, not the camera.

I once read a book about black and white (wet) darkroom printing. One passage stated (paraphrasing from memory), "Black and white darkroom work is deceptive. It is easy for almost anyone to make an acceptable print - yet it is exceedingly difficult to make a fine print that is up to the standards of exhibition quality."

By the same token, Leica M cameras are also deceptive. They are exceedingly simple machines - yet they require a solid base of camerawork knowledge in order for the photographer to manifest the photographic greatness that they are fully capable of.

And that's before we even get around to addressing the issue of photographic composition.
 
hepcat said:
I'd say that not only is Leica fair; it's a great equalizer. It brings photography down to the lowest common denominator: the photographer. If the image fails, it's because the photographer failed, not automation. We have an entire generation of photographers now who complain when their equipment misses focus, C-AF isn't fast enough, ISO doesn't go high enough, etc ad nauseum. Leica is ultimately painfully fair. If the focus is off, if the ISO wasn't properly taken into account, if whatever goes wrong, with Leica the fault lies solely with the photographer and his choice of lenses. That's as "fair" as it gets. "Here's the camera, go make it work." That's scary territory for those who have never had to learn the basics of image making and who rely on the camera to do those tasks.
Click to expand...
Fairness in that sense isn't unique to Leica. The same argument can be made with respect to any 35mm camera with a manual mode which accepts manual focus lenses. Is a Leica any more "fair" than say a Nikon F, Canon F1, Olympus OM-1, etc.? Aren't they "great equalizers" as well?
 
faberryman said:
Fairness in that sense isn't unique to Leica. The same argument can be made with respect to any 35mm camera with a manual mode which accepts manual focus lenses. Is a Leica any more "fair" than say a Nikon F, Canon F1, Olympus OM-1, etc.? Aren't they "great equalizers" as well?
Click to expand...

I don't disagree; but you don't have people posting on forums and bloggers writing about the Nikon F et.al. as overpriced junk, and the people who use them as some kind of narcissists or faux-photographers who have more money than common sense.
 
faberryman said:
Fairness in that sense isn't unique to Leica. The same argument can be made with respect to any 35mm camera with a manual mode which accepts manual focus lenses. Is a Leica any more "fair" than say a Nikon F, Canon F1, Olympus OM-1, etc.? Aren't they "great equalizers" as well?
Click to expand...

Or for that matter any camera with a manual mode.

Granted, several people here have readily professed to be incapable of reading camera manuals, so they might not have figured out what the M on a mode dial stands for.

Or maybe it's just that they are philosophically opposed to mode dials to begin with - a superfluous feature that gets in the way. Perhaps such easy access to automation (autofocus, heavens! Aperture priority must be the devils works) is just too much temptation for their weak self control. The purity and sanctity of their boring photographs of people that happen to be on a street in dramatic black and white is surely diluted when a camera makes decisions for them.

The two sides here are just talking past each other.

One side claims rightly that Leica is vastly more expensive compared to other cameras one can buy that are as or more flexible, have equal or better sensors, can have a significantly shallower learning curve but offering depth when the photographer is ready for it, all while being similarly sized, capable of mounting the same lenses and being every bit as or even more reliable. Consequently, they claim that Leica is irrelevant to the mainstream, and they are undeniably right.

It's even worse when you don't limit Leica to the M and consider their Panasonic rebadges. All the arguments to justify the M price - limited production, hand-crafted, made in places with higher labor costs - all go out the window with the rebadges. The claim that they are selling their name absolutely holds (and please don't add the full retail value of a bundled Lightroom 5 to help make up the difference).

Mortally offended though, the response is that Leicas simplicity and lack of superfluous features, and great build quality are still very appealing to a specific niche that can use them as photographic tools. OK great, but that still does not change the fact that Leica does not matter to the mainstream (because if it did, either Leica or someone would make a product to get those sales).

No manufacturer is going to because the rangefinder isn't relevant to the mainstream - it's been tried, used, compared against TTL viewing and AF, and replaced. And the rangefinder is really all that differentiates the digital Ms from digital anything else now. Sure, some of the niche might really value manual controls and the lack of "superfluous" features, but the rest of us are happy to adapt, and not have to pay a premium for enforced simplicity. If you're used to Ms, and you can afford them, and you aren't willing to adapt then more power to you. It's great that Leica still makes something that matters to the tiny little niche you occupy.

It's nice that you don't have to worry about camera manuals. All my digitals have manuals that are thinner than my microwave, dishwasher and washing machine though (and those don't come printed in multiple languages to boot). Yet somehow, we still manage to use these devices, because just like digital cameras, they are all pretty darn similar when you get down to it, and they just aren't that hard (because difficulty and complexity aren't the same thing). Personally, I think the "must have simplicity because manuals are too long" says more about the user than the manual. That, and the histogram of ages of posters on this thread.
 
Returning to film after many years, I looked a getting a used M6 (wanted a meter) and 35mm Summicron, and it was going to cost north of $4K. I can afford it, but decided an OM-1 and 35mm f2 Zuiko would fit the bill nicely for one-tenth the cost. Same field of view, same film, same processing. I, perhaps naively, thought that my vision and technique would be the limiting factors. I'm not sure what people think of me; perhaps they think I am a cheapskate and an amateur. Oh no. Sleepless nights ahead.

My feeling is that if you want a Leica for whatever reason, and you can afford one, go for it. Life is short. Who cares if people think it is overpriced junk, and that you are are some kind of narcissist or faux-photographer who has more money than common sense. Or a dentist. Caring about what other people think about you says more about you than them.
 
Hi,

I have to say that I don't think Leicas are that expensive. My one has cost me under fifteen pounds a year. That's the cost of the camera, lenses, case, ERC and two minor repairs and some bits like lens hoods and lens caps replaced.

No one could say that's expensive, unless we compare it with the cost of the Olympus XA2 at about a pound a year as it was a trade in...

What the (Hobby or fun) cameras in the collection/heap have cost is no one's business but they were not bought mainly for photography. Even so the few cameras I've paid a pound or less for and used for years and years make up for the more exotic stuff: a 1925 or 26 Leica is an expensive toy but I don't think the posters on this thread are talking about our toys but mean our working cameras.

Regards, David
 
gnarayan said:
And the rangefinder is really all that differentiates the digital Ms from digital anything else now. Sure, some of the niche might really value manual controls and the lack of "superfluous" features, but the rest of us are happy to adapt, and not have to pay a premium for enforced simplicity. If you're used to Ms, and you can afford them, and you aren't willing to adapt then more power to you. It's great that Leica still makes something that matters to the tiny little niche you occupy.
Click to expand...

I can't answer for any other user on this forum, but for me, you hit the nail exactly on the head. The rangefinder is what differentiates these cameras, and to me the RF/VF is worth its weight in gold. It is THE reason to shoot Leica digital. If I didn't care about that, any digital camera would do. I do like the simplicity, but it's not because I can't figure out the mode dial on an electronic camera, it's because programming of necessity deals with "average." I don't often shoot "average." When I do, my Panny GX1 is just peachy.

When I'm working, I can focus, set exposure, get the desired DOF, and get my image faster because I don't have to figure out how to turn off all of the stuff on the electro-marvel that interferes with me making the image that I want. I don't have to do menus and switches and dials and try to remember what is programmed to do what. The controls are in the same places they were forty years ago and continue to have exactly the same functions they had then. Just try switching any other brand's models in the middle of the shoot and try to stay oriented to the controls. Even back in the film days, the controls on the EOS1 and other EOS bodies weren't consistent. They even changed slightly among the EOS1 variants. Back to the electronic features, autofocus is probably the worst function, and drive-by-wire lenses are all but useless in manual focusing modes. As in the photo of the iPhone and little guy posted earlier in the thread, autofocus just doesn't often focus on what I'm after, and having 24 or 39 focusing points just further confuses the sensor. And I've had one of the latest whiz-bang cameras miss focus on two out of three shots during a commercial shoot, all the while giving me a happy green focus confirmation light. Actually, that was the camera that drove me back to Leica digitals. Automation can be convenient for snapshots, but it's not all it's cracked up to be and the new bodies, for the most part, only give lip service to being able to be used manually.

So, yes Leica occupies a niche, but it's a niche that I appreciate and works for me. What I don't understand is why other people seem to have such an issue with me living in MY niche.
 
faberryman said:
. . . Caring about what other people think about you says more about you than them.
Click to expand...
Caring that people think at all is however quite important.

It's also quite important to recognize that we don't all think alike, and that a rational argument in favour of a point of view should be respected. Lazy insinuation is not a rational argument.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom