Why Leica?

[einolu]

its how you look at things. as photographic tools go, you seem to value a DSLR more highly than a rangefinder. Most people on this forum look at it the other way around.

As for UNIVACs and such, those things were also built with great care and percision. Modern electronics are built in order to be as cheap as possible to produce. I handled a friends 300D and it didnt seem better built than most digial point and shoot cameras.

 

[FrankS]

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


Yes, you have to do something to it, like take pictures with it.

From your posts Penguin, I gather you are quite young. 20 at most but I'll take a stab at 17. Correct?

If you haven't "gotten it" from the posts here or from the other reading you have done on Leica, you may not be ready. Enleicament comes to those who are ready. 😉

 

[Bertram2]

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. .

No, not at all, it's not that simple.. You mix some things together which must be considered separately, I'd say.
You can compare Leica RF to other RF cameras and discuss the price gap, but what sense does it make to compare a Leica to a DSLR ? That's comparing apples and tomatoes, isn't it ? Two different systems AND two different media.
Comparing prices only leads nowhere or would you regard a DSLR as your alternative to a rangefinder camera ?
If so it's ME who has misunderstood your question.

Bertram

 

[Penguin_101]

No, not at all, it's not that simple.. You mix some things together which must be considered separately, I'd say.
You can compare Leica RF to other RF cameras and discuss the price gap, but what sense does it make to compare a Leica to a DSLR ? That's comparing apples and tomatoes, isn't it ? Two different systems AND two different media.
Comparing prices only leads nowhere or would you regard a DSLR as your alternative to a rangefinder camera ?
If so it's ME who has misunderstood your question.

Bertram

The prices really don't lead anywere. We could say that both cameras cost the same amount, but you could only get one. That would be a better way to look at it I think. There really is no sense to compare the two. The orginal post was just looking at why they cost so much and why would anyone buy them. Somehow this thread changed to a DSLR vs. Rangefinder match. I simply said "I can easily see spending $8000 for a DSLR, but not for a rangefinder." That was ment to mean that I understand why those are so expensive. Then I simply said that I thought my 350D would still be working in 50 years. That is when the thread turned bad. The fact is that no one here knows if it will work in 50 years. They can only guess. Leica has been around for that long, but DSLR hasn't. That Apple IIGS that I have has been on everyday for the last 23 years. It is still working fine. It is all on how you treat it.

Then again everyone says that the computers of that time would not be able to read or use it. How does everyone here know that in 50 years that 35mm will still be here. How do you know? You may have a darkroom now that you will still have in 50 years some will say. How come you can't save a computer that long and it still will work then. It would also be just as simple to keep upgrading the driver for the next 50 years. Maybe the company would not do it, but I am sure that I could or someone else in the world could. Computers are not smarter than the person that programmed or made them. If you wanted to make something work, the computer is not going to be smarter than you. It is simple electronics, bin., and some programming.

I forgot to answer the last question: I would say that my DSLR is an alternative to a rangefinder. Why? They both do the same thing, but in different ways. This thread was to find out about the Leica 'way'.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I forgot to answer the last question: I would say that my DSLR is an alternative to a rangefinder. Why? They both do the same thing, but in different ways. This thread was to find out about the Leica 'way'.

There you have answered your own question. Different ways to get a similar end result so use what you like and understand.

Bob

 

[Honu-Hugger]

Or, investigate some of the esoteric alternatives that exceed Leica quality -- they are out there.

 

[solane]

as i've come into this discussion late in the game (and i'm coming to rangefinders after exploring the world of high priced dSLRs), i have to agree with brian. the advantages of these mechanical marvels we call rangefinders appeal to me for the same reason that my vintage vespas appeal to me.

if a light meter stops working on an older RF, you can fix it or replace it or use a handheld meter and all the other functions will work. my dSLR would be a beast to operate if the electronics broke down. if the light meter died, it would probably be impossible to even set the aperture with some AF lenses because they don't even have an aperture ring. my vespa speedometer went kaput and it still runs just fine. just like my minolta 7s.

simple mechanics peppered with nostaliga and love will keep things running for a lot longer. 🙂

 

[M7IIPurist]

In my opinion, I think the real issue at hand is not about the brand name behind a camera, but more importantly the aesthetics behind it. For me, the camera is *one* tool in the art making process and just like how a painter chooses his/her brushes to achieve a certain aesthetic, then so should a photographer. Each camera has a different aesthetic and produces a certain looking negative, and you should purchase your equipment accordingly.

I started off with a 35mm camera and moved onto 6x7 because I wanted a longer tonal range and sharpness that would hold up for very large enlargements. I started off with an RB67 (roast beef 6x7), and then finally found my way to my M7ii because I needed something with better optics and portability. I couldn't be a happier camper now because it does everything that *I* need it to do. I buy according to what I need to achieve a certain look to my art.

I don't own a leica, but I can attest to its unique aesthetics. A friend of mine who is an art grad student, bought a leica minilux (point and shoot) and his new work definitely had a new (very pleasing) look to it. He needed something with optics that met his new requirements, and he got it with a leica.

Bottom line is, if you want to know why people buy leicas, or any other camera for that matter, you have to try it out and see for yourself and decide how it fits with whatever you are trying to achieve. Don't buy something just because everyone else has one, buy it because you really need it.

Just my .02 😛

 

[M7IIPurist]

Another .02 in the jar.

BillP couldn't have said it any better.

 

[Honu-Hugger]

(snip)...Bottom line is, if you want to know why people buy leicas, or any other camera for that matter, you have to try it out and see for yourself and decide how it fits with whatever you are trying to achieve. Don't buy something just because everyone else has one, buy it because you really need it.

Just my .02 😛

Excellent advice. We can offer our opinions of various cameras that we have experience with and this can be of some help, but ultimately it has to work for the individual.

 

[Doug]

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.

No, I think not... People who use Leicas (etc) appreciate fine craftsmanship and precision; high tech where it counts. Black powder shooters use Lomos. 😀

 

[Tim]

No, I think not... People who use Leicas (etc) appreciate fine craftsmanship and precision; high tech where it counts. Black powder shooters use Lomos. 😀

😀

Leica M6TTL & Leica IIIf.

1780 Pennsylvania style flintlock rifle, and 1860 Enfield Musket.

No Lomos........

 

[wlewisiii]

Contax, Kiev & fine folders.

L1A1 rifle, TC flintlock, Ithaca 37 shotgun.

Definately no Lomos!

William

 

[Andy K]

Regardless of brand, I would sooner spend the money on a rangefinder. I can fit a rangefinder in a pocket, a DSLR needs a wheelbarrow to lug about.
Also the rangefinder will give me beautiful, tangible, viewable without any electrickery, negatives.

 

[Honu-Hugger]

Contax, Alpa, Rollei, Super Ikonta...
Colt 1911 and Browning Hi-Power, Weatherby, and Benelli...

If there's a correlation there someone will have to point it out for me 😀

 

[peter_n]

Leica M6TTL and Canonet.

No guns.

 

[Bertram2]

I forgot to answer the last question: I would say that my DSLR is an alternative to a rangefinder. Why? They both do the same thing, but in different ways. This thread was to find out about the Leica 'way'.

No, it's not that easy. This logic would not work for a car, it would mean a Ferrari or a Corolla are an alternative for you because they both are doing the same thing by bringing you from A to B.
But for a camera that does not work at all. It's a tool and you cannot say nothing about it before you tried it out yourself. Both cameras are VERY different to use and you cannot replace one with the other if you do not focus yourself seriously on a certain style of shooting and a certain kind of photographical interests. many have a SLR and RF , each for it's own purpose.

And the Leica way ? What could this be ? If it exists at all it is an issue to discuss among the RF users Id say. The "Leica way" is not the RF way.
Bertram

 

[julianphotoart]

So for a long time I was anti-Leica. Then I got an M3. Beautiful machine. How can something from 1956 be this mechanically incredible??? But an M3 for me is not an everyday camera. Then 6 months ago I got an M7. I hate to say it but this is a just plain awesome use-for-everything silky smooth dynamite "tool" of a 35mm camera. All I've got these days (for real-life shooting) is the M7 and a Mamiya 7. Everything else looks very nice in the collection, but honest-to-goodness they pale in comparison to the M7. That stupid white dot of a light-meter works fantastic too!!! Luckily, I don't care if the M7 gets dinged and dented. It will outlast me by a long way. Even though the up-front price is STUPID, amortizing the joy of a Leica over the ADDITIONAL useful life it will have compared to another camera makes the cost quite reasonable.

 

[canonetc]

No, I wouldn't spend $3500, but I did spend $1600 for an M6 with 35 f/2. Why? Durability, longevity, quietness, lens quality and sheer coooolness. Glass radically improved my image quality, manualness is forcing me to get faster in my shooting. If you want to spend less, get an CLA'd M2 with a 50mm and use the Sunny 16 rule.

Some people, not all by any means, spend 3500 for the same reason people shop in Beverly Hills. It really goes back to whether you are satisfied with your images. Find a friend and borrow one. Shoot a roll and compare. Then decide.

Chris
canonetc