Why the obsession with "Leica Killers?"

[semilog]

So the public is clamoring for something that's exactly like a Leica but 1/4 the price which isn't going to happen.

Nope. I want something lighter, smaller, with a superior sensor, and — ideally — with in-body IS. The digital Ms are bloated overpriced skeuomorphic anachronisms. Pretend 1954 film cameras with digital sensors.

Just astonishing how some people here are totally convinced that they understand what other people think and want.

 

[Keith]

I've just watched Kai's review of the M240 ... I have to say I'd have one before I'd own the X-pro or anything similar but the price is a little challenging.

I also think that Kai's review of the camera was quite restrained ... he's normally far more flippant!

 

[Lss]

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🙁.

Ferrari has a better windshield, and it's coupled to the steering. With clearly marked direction and gear presets it's also quicker to just zone drive around. 😀

 

[rluka]

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.

Which is again, why the "Leica killer" is wanted isn't it ?
Something to give alternative for using mechanical rangefinder in 135 digital sensor, even if it's inferior.

There's Bessa and the ZI for film camera, but nothing for 135 digital sensor.
For the lens, they're not forcing users to use the same brand. So again, choice and alternatives are available.

 

[liamC]

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.

maybe compare to other high end digital gear, leicas do ok because of limited production capacity and relative high demand.
More than 61% loss in value minus cpi indexing is still a lot. If you just want to shoot, go for leica digital all you like. If you want your gear to hold up value, leica digital or any high end digital is not such a great idea.

 

[zuiko85]

Some photographers can take money shots with a Hogla 120n.

Does that make the $30 Holga 120n a "Leica Killer"?

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

A "Leica Killer"...Why not ? First they have to kill my leicas, I just had (the first ever) rebuild
(new leather, total CLA etc.) on my M3 DS of (maybe 1958 vintage). Now it feels like it came out of Wetzlar yesterday. fantastic silky like film advance, that zippy sounding 15th second shutter sound, totally SOLID feel etcetera. When you are talking about a "LEICA KILLER" you have to have at least 20 years span of usage or more. Then it is time to evaluate...http://www.flickr.com/photos/40146285@N08/10211895693/

 

[btgc]

When Leica will become only a collector or show-off items, not used for real photography then we can say it's killed. No matter what people will use instead - compacts without optical finder or smartphones or what else - Leica as a camera company will be dead. It still can be be afloat, though, even doing rather well.

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

Kill a leica ? You know, there are companies that do service, also camera service. Those seem to "live" actually quite well. Then there is companies that produce cameras, some of them seem do do fine, also leica... Then there is a company that invests on both: Producing new cameras AND to offer service. One of them is definitely LEICA. Mr Kaufmann knows that for example there are many well to do companies in the Classic/Vintage Car market that are doing extremely well. many of them German ( Mercedes Bentz classics,Audi Classics Division) As cameras are not race cars, rather vintage cars like, Leica is investing heavily to the leica boutiques, leica galleries as well as the classic department in the new Wetzlar factory. It will not be "killed" anytime soon. All those that preach the "killing of leica" are... well just blind or narrow sighted.

 

[rluka]

So there's yet an agreeable definition of "killed"

Putting it totally out of existence is difficult, it demands 100% and even if just one Leica survived, then it's not dead yet.
But making it less desirable because there's alternative with more accessible price to the mass... shouldn't that be possible ? If many companies would invest in it.

 

[btgc]

But making it less desirable because there's alternative with more accessible price to the mass... shouldn't that be possible ?

this already has happened - masses have plenty of alternatives for a fraction of price...still doesn't mean Leica is dead...far from it.

 

[rluka]

Mechanical rangefinder ?

Because that's still the only choice for digital fullframe mechanical-rangefinder 🙂
They're still in position to say take it or leave it

 

[btgc]

Mechanical rangefinder ?

Because that's still the only choice for digital fullframe mechanical-rangefinder 🙂
They're still in position to say take it or leave it

It's amazing that one product is made up from two so different technologies. It would be like buyers of supercars would insist to have cable operated clutch instead of pneumatical, or they would reject synchronized trannies because double clutching is a perfect way to shift speeds, and great drivers of past did so 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think you have this backwards Roger, its the former not the later that we use Leica. . . .

Dear Michael,

I am sure you are right, but I was trying as hard as possible to be generous to those who think that a jumped-up EVF point-and-shoot can ever begin to compare with an M-series Leica.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

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.

Nonsense, eh? Quite unlike your assertions, then.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Michael Markey]

Because that's still the only choice for digital fullframe mechanical-rangefinder .

Exactly .
Choices ...what features are important to you in a camera.

There are plenty of alternatives out there which are cheaper and probably as well built with IQ to match .
However only Leica build a mechanical , full frame rangefinder and in that respect there is no alternative.

Price is another issue entirely.

 

[Rodchenko]

The main reason anything is marketed as a 'Leica-killer' is the same reason something is marketed as an 'iPad-killer'. It's to get the word 'Leica' into the ad copy, so, when someone searches online, your page comes up.

It's a kind of tacit admission of defeat, but, if it brings a few customers their way, just like those annoying eBay-sellers who put 'Not Leica, Zeiss...etc etc' into their descriptions, then it pays its way as a tactic, sadly.

As for the unique position of Leica, I love using a mechanical rangefinder in my photography, as I find it harder to focus an SLR, and autofocus is fiddly to control if you're not just going to give it its head (OK, so that's what I generally do with my m43, but it's not ideal). And I would love to have a full-frame digital camera that isn't as bulky as the DSLRs. The only FFRF is a Leica, so what are my options? If there were to be a digital version of the ZIZM, I'd be over the moon (and in trouble with my partner for spending a lot of money we don't have). But there isn't.

Leica may spend a lot of time and effort making rich men's toys for the luxury gadget market, but they also make damn good cameras, and the PR they get keeps them positioned as a key luxury brand.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's amazing that one product is made up from two so different technologies. . .

Why is it amazing? Once something works, it works. Change for the sake of change is like asking why bicycles have only two wheels and chain drive, instead of three wheels or shaft drive. Or why bicycles still exist now that we have motor-cars.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Rodchenko]

I find it amazing that some digital cameras have great big mirrors clacking out of the way before you can take a photo. Such an old technology.

 

[btgc]

Why is it amazing? Once something works, it works.

Well, maybe I sounded a bit denial in my earlier post. I'm torn between old and new - I kind of wonder about fact that mechanical rangefinder has survived so long and even has found it's [probably last] home in a digital camera, at same time I greet it as I like it for it's simplicity and ease of use. It's like an old dinosaur or last Apache - world has moved on but there's the last creature, last from the breed. I can't think of many areas where something haven't changed for so long time....probably except wheel 🙂 despite that tire technologies change over time.

I find it amazing that some digital cameras have great big mirrors clacking out of the way before you can take a photo. Such an old technology.

Moving mirror is what were available then, good enough compromise between technology and user experience. Sony's semi-translucent mirror is an interesting direction, but I haven't used it yet. Other mirrorless, if we ignore obvious downsides, also make mirror obsolete.