Why Leica Matters

[gnarayan]

If Leicas do matter to you: well, you try and keep 'em in business. What has "ought" do do with any of this?

"Ought" arises because the original post that started this thread asserted that Leica "ought" to matter to the average photographer, who is losing their way in the world of digital options.

From said OP:
"With Leica’s traditional and wonderful photographic history I think its very important that they succeed in this new era of instant snap shots and social media. Of course the Leica M is just a digital camera that does what every other camera does. Allows light through a lens and records the image to a digital sensor. But what has attracted me to the digital Leica (maybe someday a film version) is how you the photographer interacts with the camera.

Most all of today’s digital cameras are more like a small computer with their multitude of buttons and settings. Its easy for me to understand why the camera in the smart phone has taken over the point and shoot market. With just a couple clicks you have turned on the camera function and made a photograph. Whereas, from my experience, all of these different options that are built-in to most all digital cameras today are not so easy for the average photographer to manage."

The argument is complete rubbish, as is much of this thread. Leica matters to a very small population of photographers, and much of this thread has been this section asserting that it is superior, while leaving out the "for me" and otherwise patting themselves on their respective backs.

Not many would care about the thread if it was "Why Leica matters to me" and the arguments have generally centered on why Leica is superior to present digital offerings, while absolutely ignoring the shortcomings of the former.

 

[sevad]

I have to disagree with the blogger. A Leica M-E is not a simple camera! A Leica M2 is a simple camera, as is an Olympus OM1. The idea that a camera stuffed with a much technology as an M-E could ever be simple is just wrong. The fact that it might be possible to operate it in a simple fashion is a different concept.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

while leaving out the "for me"

That, I agree, is the key missing phrase.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Leica matters because, as with Nikon, I'm heavily invested in thier gear. The difference between Leica and Nikon for me -- my Nikon gear has depreciated in value by a *huge* amount. Today, I couldn't get more than $0.05 for every $1.00 I've sunk in Nikon bodies, lenses, accessories.

Are you being hyperbolic with the $.05 on the dollar?

For example, Nikon still makes two of the lenses which are my primary shooters: 50mm f/1.2 AiS and 28mm f/2.8 AiS. The retail cost of the 50mm is $700 and the 28mm is around $600 with some retail seller price variation.

Looking only at my gear, the least expensive lens I have bought in the last several years is a 300mm f/4.5 AiS which I got in ugly condition for under $200 and sold for about $1000 new back in the mid-80s. This still isn't that much depreciation.

The Nikon used market is very lively as their cameras (as well as the bodies of Sony, Fuji and Canon) can use a full range of the old Nikkors. In my view, as a former full-time Leica digital shooter (I've switched to NIkon due to reliability) the Leica resale market is far more moribund simply due to the cost of entry into Leica gear.

I used to shoot an M8 and M9 along with some spectacular shooting and expensive lenses. I took almost a $2000 hit on the Leica M9 (bought new) after only 20 months of ownership and 10 months of use. I bought that camera under the student purchase program as well so if you look at the full retail value of the M9, it depreciated by almost $4000 and had no abuse, a new sensor, new shutter and a year of factory warranty.

So regarding resale value, Leica matters just as much as Nikon. They both depreciate according to what the market will bear.

I will happily give you $.10 on the dollar for some Ai and AiS lenses (maybe an F2 or F3 body as well) if you really think your Nikon gear is worth that little.

Regardless of what it is worth, the gear still works. That's what counts. My Nikon bodies never have failed me. I can't say the same of the Leica digitals.

Phil Forrest

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Leica matters to a very small population of photographers. . .

Precisely. And all other arguments are irrelevant. As long as Leica matters to enough people to keep them in business, or, alternatively, at least to keep existing Leicas going, there is no "ought". Drivel about old guys, film users, etc., is... well... drivel.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gnarayan]

Roger, perhaps you missed that the source of the "old guys, film users" drivel was not me:

Everyone I know that has bought one are photographers and most are old film guys like me.. Thats a reality and not pretending.

We both agree that Leica matters to a small segment, but if this segment wants to self-identify as "old film guys" (probably accurately at that) and outright state that they prefer Leicas because they can't come to terms with the perceived complexity of modern digital cameras, that is hardly my fault.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I said most that I know personally that own Leica M but not all that I know are old film guys and we all have complex digital cameras but PREFER something different like the rangefinder shooting experience. I know that is hard for some to get their heads around but that is at the core of why Leica matters to me and those like me. Nice to have an alternative.

 

[gnarayan]

I said most that I know personally that own Leica M but not all that I know are old film guys and we all have complex digital cameras but PREFER something different like the rangefinder shooting experience.

And that is absolutely fine. If you've used them all your life, can afford them, and don't feel like adapting, more power to you. I'm very glad you still have choice.

I know that is hard for some to get their heads around but that is at the core of why Leica matters to me and those like me. We have an alternative.

And I know that it is hard for some to get their around the fact that this thread was not about why Leica matters to Leica users, but why Leica's digital offerings ought to matter to photographers in general. What followed was a bunch of posts going on about their superiority, while conveniently ignoring the drawbacks.

With the film cameras, it's a different story. But the used film camera market matters even less to photographers in general, and not at all to Leica.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I never said that you had to adapt to anything. If ya want all the bells and whistles it certainly is easy to find cameras with those but not so easy to find a B&W FF rangefinder with great high ISO capabilities.

Superiority only to me and the way I shoot. I never said it would be better for you. If so please point to that post. I did say there are a lot out there like me (sales of both the MM, M9 and now the M 240) and sales have been solid for Leica since the production of those cameras. If you like what you shoot with great, rock on, but again it's very nice to have a real choice and that is why Leica matters.

 

[______]

All my Leica gear has held or increased in value over time. So, Leica matters!

I'm guessing you don't own one of Leica's digital cameras.

 

[hepcat]

And that is absolutely fine. If you've used them all your life, can afford them, and don't feel like adapting, more power to you. I'm very glad you still have choice.



And I know that it is hard for some to get their around the fact that this thread was not about why Leica matters to Leica users, but why Leica's digital offerings ought to matter to photographers in general. What followed was a bunch of posts going on about their superiority, while conveniently ignoring the drawbacks.

With the film cameras, it's a different story. But the used film camera market matters even less to photographers in general, and not at all to Leica.

Fools jump in where Angels fear to tread, and so I jump in...

I think you need to define "photographers" when you make sweepingly broad comments about "photographers in general."

As airfrogusmc is now contemplating, I've already switched back entirely to Leica M for my digital shooting. I've returned to Hasselblad as well after nearly 15 years with Olympus digital and starting shooting weddings with the e10 and e20n.

I've been shooting commercially since 1974 and I think I've a pretty good grasp on what I need to get any particular job done. When, early on, digicams were essentially film cameras with sensors I found the switch fairly painless. As we move further and further from that I find the cameras more and more tiresome to make images with.

I happen to have acquired a fairly substantial Leica M setup over the past year and a half; two digi-M bodies, a film body and a raft of lenses and I have less than the cost of a new M240 and and a new Noctilux in the whole kit. The Olympus gear I sold covered about 2/3rds of the cost. As I said in an earlier post, I'm heavily invested in CV glass rather than Leica glass although I do have three '60s Leitz lenses in the mix.

I'm not entirely sure what the "drawbacks" are to the Leica digi-M bodies as I find I'm able to do everything I need to do with them quite nicely. I'm not oblivious that other bodies may have higher ISO, but then they also have autofocus, neither of which I need.

So, I consider myself a "photographer" as understood from the manual camera, film and darkroom days. I have and shoot an iPhone as well and can manipulate digital well. I'm not a luddite, but neither am I on the "latest and greatest" digital bandwagon.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Fools jump in where Angels fear to tread, and so I jump in...

I think you need to define "photographers" when you make sweepingly broad comments about "photographers in general."

As airfrogusmc is now contemplating, I've already switched back entirely to Leica M for my digital shooting. I've returned to Hasselblad as well after nearly 15 years with Olympus digital and starting shooting weddings with the e10 and e20n.

I've been shooting commercially since 1974 and I think I've a pretty good grasp on what I need to get any particular job done. When, early on, digicams were essentially film cameras with sensors I found the switch fairly painless. As we move further and further from that I find the cameras more and more tiresome to make images with.

I happen to have acquired a fairly substantial Leica M setup over the past year and a half; two digi-M bodies, a film body and a raft of lenses and I have less than the cost of a new M240 and and a new Noctilux in the whole kit. The Olympus gear I sold covered about 2/3rds of the cost. As I said in an earlier post, I'm heavily invested in CV glass rather than Leica glass although I do have three '60s Leitz lenses in the mix.

I'm not entirely sure what the "drawbacks" are to the Leica digi-M bodies as I find I'm able to do everything I need to do with them quite nicely. I'm not oblivious that other bodies may have higher ISO, but then they also have autofocus, neither of which I need.

So, I consider myself a "photographer" as understood from the manual camera, film and darkroom days. I have and shoot an iPhone as well and can manipulate digital well. I'm not a luddite, but neither am I on the "latest and greatest" digital bandwagon.

I shot with 500 C/Ms for a couple decades and still kick myself for letting all three go a few years back.

I am also a commercial photographer and do that to support the family and am also not a luddite. What I do for a living wouldn't tolerate that.

I haven't liked a camera as much as I enjoy my MM since the mid 1980s when I first bought my 500 C/Ms. So for that reason and the fact my Canons are going to be really long in the tooth in a year or so it's a great time to make the switch to Leica.

 

[hepcat]

I shot with 500 C/Ms for a couple decades and still kick myself for letting all three go a few years back.

I am also a commercial photographer and do that to support the family and am also not a luddite. What I do for a living wouldn't tolerate that.

I haven't liked a camera as much as I enjoy my MM since the mid 1980s when I first bought my 500 C/Ms. So for that reason and the fact my Canons are going to be really long in the tooth in a year or so it's a great time to make the switch to Leica.

As an aside to the thread topic, the price of readmission to Hassy is remarkably low right now... I've bought back twice the gear I had, and twenty years newer, and paid about a quarter of what I got out of mine when I sold it in Y2k. 😉

Nice late model c/m bodies are going for $350... CF lenses for $450. A12 backs are about $85 if you buy carefully. It's just amazing. This time though I bought a 500 CXi body and a 501CM body, so I paid a little more, but still... quite the bargain!

 

[airfrogusmc]

As an aside to the thread topic, the price of readmission to Hassy is remarkably low right now... I've bought back twice the gear I had, and twenty years newer, and paid about a quarter of what I got out of mine when I sold it in Y2k. 😉

Nice late model c/m bodies are going for $350... CF lenses for $450. A12 backs are about $85 if you buy carefully. It's just amazing. This time though I bought a 500 CXi body and a 501CM body, so I paid a little more, but still... quite the bargain!

Thanks for the info. It is very tempting.

 

[rfaspen]

Ah, I've said a million times, I never exaggerate! OK, I may have exaggerated a little about my Nikon gear depreciation, but not by that much. But I've looked into divesting myself of most of my Nikon gear and its truly a substantial loss. I should be happy to get 10 to 20% of my investment on that gear, but when I pull it out to sell, I get remorse and possessive. Eventually, I'll just take the hit and draw down to 1 or 2 bodies and a few key lenses. I still use them to do the stuff SLRs do best -- telephoto wildlife and macro. However, I've started into micro 4/3 for some of that. I'm reasonably happy with it, but it doesn't fully achieve film performance. I don't know if that's lens or sensor limitation, or something else. My micro-Nikkors (I have a couple-few of those) perform nicely on the u4/3 body, but it still leaves something to be desired.

Ah I'm off on a tanget. I don't have any digital Leica. Yes, that's 1 reason why my Leica gear hasn't deprecieated (much if at all). However, a digital "Leica" is in my future. Just not sure if it will be genuine Leica or another maker.

BTW, never had Hassy, Rollei instead (TLR, 8008, SL), but the current prices have me tempted. Jeez. When will I learn...

 

[Mcary]

A
And I know that it is hard for some to get their around the fact that this thread was not about why Leica matters to Leica users, but why Leica's digital offerings ought to matter to photographers in general.

No Leica doesn't need to matter to photographers in general. Leica needs to matter to enough photographers/customers to make a profit and stay in/grow their business. I Remember reading in 2012 or 2013 that Leica was looking to increase their market share to 1% of the overall camera market. Which means they need to matter to a very small percentage of shooters so hardly what you'd call photographers in general.

 

[hepcat]

Ah, I've said a million times, I never exaggerate! OK, I may have exaggerated a little about my Nikon gear depreciation, but not by that much. But I've looked into divesting myself of most of my Nikon gear and its truly a substantial loss. I should be happy to get 10 to 20% of my investment on that gear, but when I pull it out to sell, I get remorse and possessive. Eventually, I'll just take the hit and draw down to 1 or 2 bodies and a few key lenses. I still use them to do the stuff SLRs do best -- telephoto wildlife and macro. However, I've started into micro 4/3 for some of that. I'm reasonably happy with it, but it doesn't fully achieve film performance. I don't know if that's lens or sensor limitation, or something else. My micro-Nikkors (I have a couple-few of those) perform nicely on the u4/3 body, but it still leaves something to be desired.

Ah I'm off on a tanget. I don't have any digital Leica. Yes, that's 1 reason why my Leica gear hasn't deprecieated (much if at all). However, a digital "Leica" is in my future. Just not sure if it will be genuine Leica or another maker.

BTW, never had Hassy, Rollei instead (TLR, 8008, SL), but the current prices have me tempted. Jeez. When will I learn...

LMAO!!! Great post... I am bemused by folks who buy consumer goods to use and expect them to not depreciate. Don't misunderstand, it's great if they don't depreciate, but the value in purchasing them is to put them to the use for which they're intended. The "lifetime camera" concept is, sadly, advertising hype and it's unfortunate that anyone actually bought an M leica of any vintage expecting it to last a lifetime, but especially the digi-Ms. Think about our original IBM PCXT computers with a whopping 4.77 mhz processor, 4k of RAM and 160k floppy drive. I don't think it's reasonable that any consumer electronics goods are "lifetime investments." The technology isn't reliable and changes regularly. Camera technology has the same development path.

In defense of the digi-Ms, however, the technology was suitably mature by the introduction of the M8 that, for those of us who choose to use them, it will remain a viable camera for years to come... and certainly the M9 series will remain viable as a working tool for many, many years to come.

I have two digi-Ms, an M8 and M9P. I will use them as long as they're viable, and when I think I need a newer tool, I'll take the hit on depreciation, get what I can out of them and buy the next depreciable consumer Leica body. Hopefully that hit won't be too bad as I bought both of mine used. But I'll take a hit, no doubt. But I'll also have had a good many years' worth of use out of them which, to me, is worth the cameras' weights in gold.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Leica matter to people prepared to buy new but I don't think I can afford new and the M2 and its three lenses will outlast me, so personally it doesn't matter if they exist or not. Same goes for all the othe makers too. But no one asks if Olympus matters, or Pentax or Minolta...

And Minolta have gone as far as I'm concerned.

Regards, David

 

[hepcat]

Thanks for the info. It is very tempting.

Yes it was, unfortunately, tempting enough that I couldn't pass it up. January seemed to be bottom-dollar pricing for Hasselblad... and prices seem to be holding for now... and perhaps may be rising a little again. I'm not sure what's happening with prices for Mamiya and Bronica.

Hi,

Leica matter to people prepared to buy new but I don't think I can afford new and the M2 and its three lenses will outlast me, so personally it doesn't matter if they exist or not. Same goes for all the othe makers too. But no one asks if Olympus matters, or Pentax or Minolta...

And Minolta have gone as far as I'm concerned.

Regards, David

Ahhh, David... but the dichotomy here is that if there was no one who ever cared about buying new, then folks like you and me wouldn't have cameras to buy used at prices we're willing to pay. (Notice I did NOT say at prices we can afford... much different concepts.)

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, perhaps you missed that the source of the "old guys, film users" drivel was not me. . .

Sorry!

Cheers,

R.