Why the obsession with "Leica Killers?"

[cosmonaut]

Well I doubt there will ever be a Leica killer. Leica users just love Leica. With that I do think the digital Ms are grossly over priced for what you get.

What is with every rumor site and spec chaser calling every mirrorless camera that hasn't been released yet a "Leica Killer?"

Why the obession with killing Leica? Sure, I realize they are expensive, but does anyone really think Leica is going to be killed by these cameras? or is it just something to say when you want a Leica and you don't want to / can't afford to spend the money to get one?

The way I see it, is that Leica can continue to exist along side these other cameras... :bang:

 

[ray*j*gun]

I recall when the Accura NSX was released there was a cry that it was going to kill Ferrari blah blah blah..... there is more to the joy of a machine than the spec sheet! My Barnacks are still my favorite cameras to use for 90% of my shooting.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I dont think so. You could get a 50/2 Summicron at the price of a Canon FD 50/1.4. Or a Noctilux for a little more than the Canon FD 50/1.2 L. How much is a Canon EF 50/1.2 L today and how much is a current Noct?

(I have the 1980s price lists here somewhere...)

Also see this thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100079

True enough but there are also "economy" Leica lenses even today: Frances's standard 50mm is an f/2.5 Summarit, bought new. People tend to concentrate on the super-expensive stuff, such as the Noctilux, to the exclusion of more affordable lenses; for a given value of "affordable", of course. Also, those who compare the M3 with the M9 might more realistically compare it with the MP, where the inflation-adjusted price differential is much lower.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well I doubt there will ever be a Leica killer. Leica users just love Leica. With that I do think the digital Ms are grossly over priced for what you get.

How would you make 'em cheaper? And where's the competition? If it were that easy and that profitable to make a true competitor, it's hard to see why someone wouldn't.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Godfrey]

What is with every rumor site and spec chaser calling every mirrorless camera that hasn't been released yet a "Leica Killer?"
...

Stupidity, envy, and foolishness. A lack of the ability to articulate anything that isn't in terms of "winning" or "beating the other guy".

Just got my new Olympus E-M1 on Friday. Its performance is nothing short of phenomenal. It's not "killed" my Leica M9 yet, however. Both seem perfectly comfortable sitting on the same shelf in my equipment cabinet.

G

 

[thegman]

Simple: Two or three grand for a lens or a (film) camera body that will hold its resale value after a decade or more of use is a reasonable value proposition, but it is the height of absurdity to pay seven large for a camera whose electronics will be obsolete in 2-3 years. It's just freaking preposterous.

I agree with the sentiment, although the electronics are not obsolete really, they're just uneconomical to repair, generally.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The only Leica killer I'm aware of and own is Bessa RF. But it is film.
To kill Leica digitally it must be FF as well and take LTM/M lenses.
But if someone compares cropper to cropper, why not.

 

[rluka]

Sure, but I bet the reason most people like M bodies is because of the mechanical rangefinder... so there is some truth to it.

Something with mechanical rangefinder, current XP1 price point and build that needs maintenance/upgrade every 2~4 years* rather than 2~4 generations.

Anyway, the only player have the right to say take it or leave it
Isn't that's why monopoly is bad ?

* subject to use scenario and the user's luck

 

[liamC]

I meant digital Leicas.

judging by the M8, digital leicas don't hold value very well.
digital sensor lifecycle is about a year or two?
Lenses hold up value a lot better.

 

[leicapixie]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137251

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137251

It allows a competing company to challenge Leica.
Not a true challenge but one where a lesser product,
can raise or inflate, it's price!
I have seen over the years so many "Leica Killers",
arrive and somehow disappear.:angel:
The truth is simple.
One either has a Leica, or one doesn't.
There is no like, similar or almost.
Load up, or charge your battery, go create photographs..😀

 

[Keith]

When someone offers a full frame digi that accepts M mount glass and has a focusing system as fuss free as a well set up rangefinder Leica will lose some sales ... but not many IMO.

And 'some people' are happy to buy Leicas for the same reason they like to eat in expensive restaurants while sipping their Dom Pérignon ... because they can and they ain't about to buy no stinkin' full frame mirrorless no matter how good it is! 😀

 

[Contarama]

Check out the Leitz microscopes...those are pretty cool too! 🙂

 

[Mudman]

judging by the M8, digital leicas don't hold value very well.
digital sensor lifecycle is about a year or two?
Lenses hold up value a lot better.

I disagree; Original price for the M8 was around $4700 IIRC, now about $1800ish in excellent condition, $1400 in rough shape.

Compare that to my D2x: About $4700 new, now worth about $500. I'd say the Leica is doing rather well. Even in comparison to the M7, the M8 is still rather fine on the used market.

 

[MIkhail]

There will be no Leica Killer camera, ever. It does not matter how good any other camera is or will be.

Good analogy would be with cars- Jaguar (at one point part of Ford Motor Co., now finally Ford gotten rid of it).
People do not buy it because it's the best car for the job. People will buy it and pay twice the Ford Fusion simply because it's a Jag, no matter how many recalls and imperfections... People want to own a Jag.

There is nothing can be done here. It is what it is.
"Vanity is my favorite sin"(c)

 

[michaelwj]

Not really. As jsrockit points out, the reason most people like M bodies must be because of the mechanical rangefinder -- or at the very least, a good optical viewfinder. Without the latter, any talk of a "Leica killer" is completely missing the point.

I think you have this backwards Roger, its the former not the later that we use Leica. The mechanical rangefinder experience is unlike anything else. Focus peaking and auto focus whatever, without a mechanical rangefinder its no competition. It would be a whole different experience.
Once you put a mechanical rangefinder in the camera, a good optical viewfinder is a given, it essentially follows the rangefinder (though it didn't always of course). The rangefinder/viewfinder combination sets the tone of the photographer-subject interaction I think, in a way that autofocus/focus peaking/EVF/ or even SLR's just can't replicate.

Just like the GT-R/Ferrari comparison, almost there, but missing one thing that makes it really special. In the case of Leica, its the rangefinder. I don't know what it is for Ferrari, I haven't had the pleasure🙁.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Keith]

The mechanical rangefinder is the attraction of Leica to me ... it definitely sets them aside from their competition and keeps customers returning to the digital M no matter what it's price!

 

[IdealCamera]

Leica can't be killed. The same way Rolleiflex can't be killed. The idea that some day Rolleiflexes will be outperformed by SLRs is ludicrous. That's why Rolleis are still being sold and bought and shot.

I'm getting a 135mm lens for my M6 because I want to take some nice shots of dodo birds. That's because I can't use my Rollei for that, what with 75mm lenses on 6x6.

 

[Stephen G]

its new-ism
same as alleged "iphone/ipad killers"

makes great headlines
gets clicks
generates pageviews
brings in ad revenue

 

[swoop]

Because everyone wants one and loves everything about them except the price of admission. So the public is clamoring for something that's exactly like a Leica but 1/4 the price which isn't going to happen. Every competitor has some kind of caveat. The Bessa and Ikon have smaller RF patches, the Bessa gets knocked out of alignment super easy. Each camera has slightly different handling. Zeiss lenses have the wobble, Voigtlander lenses always have some kind of optical tradeoff, though their newer offerings are much better but of course they're priced higher.

The joy of a Leica isn't just its image quality or even its size and that's what all these companies and people seem to be chasing. The magic is in its user interface. The rangefinder and purely mechanical feel of manipulating the camera. There is no viable alternative.

 

[semilog]

Put a decent viewfinder on it and it would probably be quite a nice camera. But the only person who would call it a "Leica killer" is someone who doesn't like or has never used a Leica.

Cheers,

R.

Both of the assertions in that last sentence are nonsense. The first camera I ever held in my hands was an M3 and I've mostly shot an M6 for the last fifteen years. I love Leicas and I have used them on an off for most of my life.

I would not even consider purchasing a digital M. The Leica killer was Bell Labs, where the first digital image sensors were developed, and Leica itself, which decided to make its living on overpriced novelty replica cameras.