Why the obsession with "Leica Killers?"
- Thread starter jsrockit
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 267
- Views 27K
doolittle
Well-known
Not to get side-tracked, but the current 911 is considerably larger than say its 1960s ancestor.
It's the usual compromise between what's desirably and what's possible.
I'm sure if Leica could have fitted all the components necessary into a M6 sized case (maintaining registration distances, rangefinder etc) they would have.
cadamei
Newbie
I've just put a deposit on an M-E. Something that I've been wanting for a long time. I feel the camera isn't worth that much but I hope the shooting experience is.
These posts are making me feel very hot and cold. Only one way to find out.
These posts are making me feel very hot and cold. Only one way to find out.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not second-best for the application in question, which was focusing a hand-held camera QUICKLY, without a dark cloth or a tripod. The first RF camera, as I recall, was a Kodak around the time of the Great War.
Second best, as with "best", immediately demands the question, "[Second] best for what?"
Cheers,
R.
Rodchenko
Olympian
And, of course, a great many soldiers were grateful (and ungrateful, depending whose hands they were in) for rangefinders for non-photographic purposes.
perudo
Established
why the obsession with leica killers? because a lot of us want compact full frame cameras for a fraction of the price....so sony bringing out full frame a7 for under 2000 is huge news for me 🙂
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Fine. As long as you don't want a coupled rangefinder and a decent viewfinder. Until someone else comes up with that, the phrase "leica killer" is, as many others have said, a rather pitiful marketing attempt to assiciate an inferior or at least different camera with a (probably unkillable) Leica.
Cheers,
R.
jsrockit
Moderator
Right, but did you really want a Leica?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
No.
I really want a camera that works well. I already have a couple of film M bodies and have no particular requirement for a digital body that apes the design of those film bodies. I really don't like the thicker profile of the digital M's.
People say it's only a few mm. But I wonder how Brancusi would have reacted if you made one of his Birds a bit thicker? That's how I feel about the digital M's. When the starting point is one of the most nearly perfect industrial designs of the 20th century, not quite right is not right at all.
Far better to start with a clean slate.
Lens mount compatibility is sufficient. If money was not an issue I would still prefer a lighter smaller body. I like the size of the X-E1 even better than the M6. It is the sweet spot between the CLE and the M6 and it weighs about 2/3 as much. For my purposes it is substantially better than the M8/9/240.
Full frame is not needed for image properties but would be nice for lens compatibility when I am shooting both film and digital. The presence of a rangefinder is not mandatory. I can shoot about as effectively with a good EVF as with a rangefinder, and often more so, since the EVF provides far more accurate framing. I get at least as many keepers with the X-E1 as I do with the M6, and that really tells me all I need to know: some kind of accurate finder is essential, but reduced camera size and weight trump the presence of an RF. I find that live view and an EVF has both advantages and disadvantages versus the M6 but overall it's a wash. And EVFs are rapidly improving, while RF's pretty much reached their apex with the M3.
Leica as a company will survive as a producer of luxury goods. But the markets that interest them are not likely to result in the cameras that interest me. http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1102&MainCatID=11&id=20131008000095
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, that pretty much tells us all we need to know about the nature (and possibly the value) of your opinions about "Leica killers".
Cheers,
R.
j j
Well-known
Maybe this surfaced earlier in the thread but "killer" just means something more likely to attract customers in a particular market (in this example a 36x24 sensor in a camera that isn't a SLR).
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
So someone disagrees with you and you resort to insults? The hedge ("possibly") does not make your reply less insulting. Why not just acknowledge that different people value different properties in their gear?
I like you, Roger. I value your posts here, almost all the time. This is beneath you.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Insults? I can see how you took it that way, and I apologize for the unhappy phraseology. On the other hand, you say no, you don't want a Leica. In which case, how much does it matter what you think about Leicas or Leica killers?
I don't like TLRs; in which case, my contributions to threads on TLRs should be treated with similar suspicion, unless there are technical points involved, such as "In my experience, the f/3.5 Planar is a sharper, contrastier lens than the f/2.8".
Once again, I apologize for the unhappy phraseology, and freely admit I should have done better. Much better. But as you don't want a Leica rangefinder camera, well, you want something else that can perfectly happily exist alongside a Leica without killing it, because its only resemblance to a Leica is a common lens mount.
On re-reading both your post and my reply, my wording comes across even worse, so I must apologize once more. But we all make mistakes sometimes.
Cheers (and apologies once again),
R.
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
I think Mr Kaufmann had it right when he said: Fuji is successiful when they took the inspiration from our M line. I guess they should have done it all the way, the great "Window"- the no fuss viewfinder and solid feel...
Ranchu
Veteran
I can't be the only one who has noticed absolutely NO correlation between how much people rave about some lens and how much it cost and how chichi the BRAND NAME is and whether or not it makes pictures I like the look of?
I like to shoot with 35mm, 2.8 is fine. I have a couple different options that give me what I want with this. I figure the chances that Leica does at about 15% given that there are only so many 35mm lenses they made.
So, what have I with my Leica? More weight, more cost, more delicate, more expensive, and MAYBE a lens I like as much as a couple I have that cost 10x-100x less. Why would I do that?
I like to shoot with 35mm, 2.8 is fine. I have a couple different options that give me what I want with this. I figure the chances that Leica does at about 15% given that there are only so many 35mm lenses they made.
So, what have I with my Leica? More weight, more cost, more delicate, more expensive, and MAYBE a lens I like as much as a couple I have that cost 10x-100x less. Why would I do that?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
@Roger — no worries. I've certainly used harsher words than I should have on many occasions.
As I said above your contributions here are legion and substantive.
As I said above your contributions here are legion and substantive.
Ranchu
Veteran
Roger said the Vivitar Series 1 35-85 f2.8 varifocal was good. It's really not.
asiafish
Established
Value
Value
Most digital bodies are consumables, but the lifecycle at the high end is far more than 2-3 years. The M8 is now 7-years-old and the M9 4-years-old. The M8 remains an outstanding camera today and that same M9 with a few frills removed still new as the $5000 ME. Used M8s are still in the $2000 range.
The M9-P seems to be holding its value rather well and the M Monochrom is so unique that it will likely retain significant resale value over the long haul as well. Will these digital bodies appreciate like lenses and classic film bodies? Unlikely, but they will depreciate far less than Sony, Nikon or Canon.
Of course if you pick up a high-end Japanese DSLR from 5-years-ago it will still focus very quickly and produce amazing files from from the many excellent lenses in their systems, the only difference is a higher rate of depreciation.
I didn't buy my gear for its value (purchase or resale), but for the pleasure I get using to take pictures. I am very interested in the A7r, but not as a "Leica Killer". I have five M and one LTM lens that would work beautifully on the A7r, but I doubt I will buy one. For my compact camera, it is still just too big (I have a Leica X2 for that purpose). For my serious camera it would definitely be a contender, but I am still absolutely smitten with my M Monochrom, which I imagine will be with me for many years to come.
Value
Most digital bodies are consumables, but the lifecycle at the high end is far more than 2-3 years. The M8 is now 7-years-old and the M9 4-years-old. The M8 remains an outstanding camera today and that same M9 with a few frills removed still new as the $5000 ME. Used M8s are still in the $2000 range.
The M9-P seems to be holding its value rather well and the M Monochrom is so unique that it will likely retain significant resale value over the long haul as well. Will these digital bodies appreciate like lenses and classic film bodies? Unlikely, but they will depreciate far less than Sony, Nikon or Canon.
Of course if you pick up a high-end Japanese DSLR from 5-years-ago it will still focus very quickly and produce amazing files from from the many excellent lenses in their systems, the only difference is a higher rate of depreciation.
I didn't buy my gear for its value (purchase or resale), but for the pleasure I get using to take pictures. I am very interested in the A7r, but not as a "Leica Killer". I have five M and one LTM lens that would work beautifully on the A7r, but I doubt I will buy one. For my compact camera, it is still just too big (I have a Leica X2 for that purpose). For my serious camera it would definitely be a contender, but I am still absolutely smitten with my M Monochrom, which I imagine will be with me for many years to come.
perudo
Established
no, I want a digital full frame leica lens compatible camera for under 2000 euros! (despite I missed something, this dream-come-true camera wasn't available before yesterday?)
PS: I own a M2 and a M6
hausen
Well-known
I don't want the M-240 I want the Sony A7r because I trust Sony's electronics far more than I do Leica's. I can afford both if I want them so $ isn't the issue. Love my RX-1 and look forward to opportunity to put 28/50 Summicrons on A7r. Is it a Leica killer probably not, but does it kill my interest in a M-240? Yes! I had the M8, M9 and currently have an M6.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
