Why Leica?

[Penguin_101]

I have been here awhile now and I have read a lot. I have mostly been reading about the older Yashicas and the other older ones. Now today I went into the Leica forum and started reading. I read about how you could design your own and other stuff. Now don't get me wrong, they are VERY nice cameras, but I cannot see spending $3500+ for a rangefinder. They are cool, but that is a lot for a manual camera. I can easily see spending $8000 for a DSLR, but not for a rangefinder. Can someone please explain this to me? Thanks 🙂

 

[wlewisiii]

I'm not a Leica guy. Not in any way shape or form - I love Contax andd Kiev cameras when it comes to 135 format cameras. But the real thing is mechanical quality. There is little in this world that is still made _that_ way. Is there anything mechanical that _you_ dearly love? A motorcycle? A rifle? Etc? If you wish to know what is going on, that is the place to start.

William

 

[Penguin_101]

I can kind of see that, but there are certain kind of guns that you would shoot the same bullet and it would have a somewhat similar effect. (Ed Brown come to mind). But in guitars, the better the quality, the better the sound. Does the pictures from a Leica give a better quality sense than one from say Voigtlander?

 

[laptoprob]

Why would you spend $8000 on a DSLR?
A Leica is not compulsory. Not even completely unique. But the kind of photography is. Read the contest essays. Don't buy the $8000 DSLR!

Rob.

 

[Doug]

$3500 for a Leica is hard to take, and at this point I cannot justify an expenditure like that. But $8000 for a DSLR is totally insane... unless you have work for it where it pays for itself quickly. Quickly because it won't be long before it's obsolete. The Leica has been obsolete so long we celebrate the obsolescense and pass them on down to grandchildren like our pre-64 Winchesters.

Bottom line is that we all have our priorities where we're willing to put down our hard-earned cash. It does bother me to hear some grumble about a camera being "too expensive", though, since no one is forcing a sale, and we can all vote our preferences with our wallets! 🙂

 

[rover]

buy used 😉

 

[TPPhotog]

I posted on another thread that Money is for spending to make life worth living. So if a Leica is the tool that you want and it will give you pleasure that's all that matters.

If you have the available cash then the price tag becomes unimportant. As with any fine goods collectors tend to inflate the market price, the same happens with quality cars. I do think it's a waste to buy such a beautiful piece of engineering and not use it but that's just me.

 

[Grumblepunk]

TBH I can't see buying a DSLR new at any price. The digital cameras that people were spending 2k for 2 years ago are now dunking on eBay for 5-700 bucks. Wee-hoo?

 

[snaggs]

but I cannot see spending $3500+ for a rangefinder. They are cool, but that is a lot for a manual camera. I can easily see spending $8000 for a DSLR, but not for a rangefinder. Can someone please explain this to me? Thanks 🙂

Imagine saving $4500 and getting a better camera, and a system which will make you a better photographer....Spend a week with a Leica, and youll soon realise all the functions on your DSLR are just marketing rubbish that

* you dont need
* hold your skills back
* lead to compromises in design

Finally, go check out how much a ten year old DSLR is worth.. now go and look at the price of a 10 year old Leica. Even if Leica's were crap cameras, as investments theyd still make more sense!

Daniel.

 

[Biber]

Leica is about the feeling.

 

[Skinny McGee]

The Glass.....................

 

[Solinar]

Do you buy your camera for the long haul or will you be jumping ship in 3 to 5 years?

When I went towards the long haul decirion, I gravitated towards a Leica because it is compact and uncomplicated. My own ala carte edition is a recently CLA'd, $275, 1951 Duanne W. Garrett edition of the IIIf purchased right here on this forum. A full range of lenses for the old Barnacks run double to triple that amount.

I'm more of grab shot photographer and too many buttons on a small camera can work against getting off a shot before being noticed. With a colapsible 50mm or a compact 35mm len, I can take it out of a pocket or my thin satchel, check the settings, zone focus, extend the lens, raise and shoot.

But the real thing is mechanical quality. There is little in this world that is still made _that_ way. Bravo William. Even though they are archaic, they still get results and when need be, do so with great precision.

A Barnack body without the lens is puny. I recently bought a second IIIf body. An RD with a self-timer with a collapsible Summicron. The two bodies allow me to choose between B&W and Color. With a couple of different focoal length lenses along they fit in a bag that is a satchel that is 4 inches at its widest point..

Last but not least, there is people's tolerance level for photographers. A state of the art electronic SLR with a zoom and its "klashatt!" report make many of my subjects camera shy. It's easier to keep a Barnack out of sight until it is needed and its shutter sound is a softer sounding schluk. So it doesn't register in most peoples mind in the same way as a paparazzi SLR.

 

[Richard Black]

The Leica you buy today will be useable long into the future. If you buy a used one that is mechanical it and maintain it, you can certainly pass it on. The debate between digital and analogue is getting tiring, but as has been pointed out, how much does a 3-5 year old digital camera sell for these days. In 10 years from now, will there be service and parts for the $8000 electronic whizbang. I own a Leica IIIc, made in the 50's, and had it serviced and reskinned. I will be able to pass that on to my grandsons. Is is worth $2500+, it is if that is what you want!

 

[Nikon Bob]

....Spend a week with a Leica, and youll soon realise all the functions on your DSLR are just marketing rubbish that

* you dont need
* hold your skills back
* lead to compromises in design

Finally, go check out how much a ten year old DSLR is worth.. now go and look at the price of a 10 year old Leica. Even if Leica's were crap cameras, as investments theyd still make more sense!

Daniel.

Well said and I really agree.

Bob

 

[Bertram2]

I have been here awhile now and I have read a lot.

If so you should have noticed that this "why pay those prices for Leica stuff" was discussed already several times here and that is is a stoneold question in all photography related forums in the web but nevertheless it is still as popular as it ever was.

The Leica M is nothing you need for to make good photos, but it's a superb piece of mechanical craftsmenship, not comparable to any modern product. Maybe Zeiss will be a real competitor. The lenses are top performers and some of the have a unique footprint, the are also manufactured with an outstanding precision.

For some photographers this is enuff reason to spend the money and for some it is not. So far the photography related part of this issue. The rest isn't worth while a discussion anyway.
Best,
Bertram

 

[peter_n]

As Bertram points out above, the issue has been beaten to death on many forums. But forget the equipment for a minute and look at the pictures taken by a film and a digital camera. There is simply no comparison. So the camera can be a Leica or a Canonet, it really makes no difference. If people have the disposable income, they get the Leica if they want to, if not they get something else. Don't fret about it, its really not about the equipment anyway. 🙂

 

[Penguin_101]

This is what I am getting out of the who Leica crew (to me). You guys are German and buy something that will last forever. So do I, I know that my 350D will still work the same 50 years from now (if I take care of it of course) and will give the same pictures. It may not be the best of the day 50 years from now, but it will still work. That is the same for Lecia. I can back up my $8000 SLR comment with the fact that I fell that camera can do a lot more (well duh 😉), but to me it is very fine mechanically. Now this is what I am finally getting:

People who use SLRs are people who shoot AR-15s, HK (everything 😉), ect. and the people who use Leica are the ones who shoot black powder.
They don't like all of the new tech. and just want to simpliy shoot older things. That is fine. Thanks for all of the replys.

 

[FrankS]

I know that my 350D will still work the same 50 years from now (if I take care of it of course) and will give the same pictures. It may not be the best of the day 50 years from now, but it will still work.

If a 350D is a digital camera, then I'm willing to bet $100 with you that in 50 years you will be wrong. (You can pay my son.) It will not "give the same picture" because a tiny electronic component inside it with a limited lifetime will have malfunctioned by then, AND computer technology will have changed to the point of being incompatible.

You don't have a chance.

 

[Penguin_101]

I know that my 350D will still work the same 50 years from now (if I take care of it of course) and will give the same pictures. It may not be the best of the day 50 years from now, but it will still work.

If a 350D is a digital camera, then I'm willing to bet $100 with you that in 50 years you will be wrong. (You can pay my son.) It will not "give the same picture" because a tiny electronic component inside it with a limited lifetime will have malfunctioned by then, AND computer technology will have changed to the point of being incompatible.

You don't have a chance.

Sure it will still work. The [strike]ABC[/strike] ENIAC or UNIVAC still works dosen't it?

 

[Penguin_101]

I doubt that any of today's digital cameras will be working in 50 years unless you own an electronics firm and can task your engineers to design and fabricate new electronics to emulate and replace the obsolete parts that are no longer obtainable. You will be lucky if a piece of software can open the raw images created "in the past", let alone operate the camera.

Just a Poll: How old is your OLDEST operating digital camera? Mine is from 1992. I took it apart and fixed it up myself. I had a "parts" camera, a dead and unrepairable one to get parts from. It is in the "Service Discontinued, cannot be repaired" category as are the Kodak DCS400 series cameras. That latter series was discontinued in 1999. How old is you oldest operating computer? My oldest is from '96, a Pentium Pro that I keep running from scavanged parts of other old machines. I use it for the 1992 Kodak Digital camera.

In 50 years all of our digital cameras will be in land fills, except for a few behind glass cases that no longer work.

OKAY: Who has some old Digital cameras and DO THEY WORK"

1992 DCS200IR: Working after taking apart and cleaning contacts.
1992 DCS200ci: Main processing board shot.

1995 DCS420c: Working

1996: NC2000e: Main electronics Board FRIED and smokes when charger plugged into camera.

BTW, Why would a digital camera just stop working? You have to do something to it.

My oldest camera: 1995
My oldest computer: 1982