Why the obsession with "Leica Killers?"

[jsrockit]

I saw some Olympus mju-II's on ebay this week and they sold from sixty to eighty pounds.

Do people collect those? I think they use those.

 

[David Hughes]

And many that weren't. Multiple automatically selected suspended parallax-compensated brightline frames, for a start. And a bigger lens throat with a simpler single mount. And...

Cheers,

R.

Hi,

I would have said that the post war Leitz lenses once they'd started coating them were real Contax killers. I'd love to do a comparison but that would mean a lot more expense as I've uncoated Sonnars and coated Summitars. So a deeper pocket than mine would be needed. Or perhaps I should compare the Sonnar with the coated Jupiter-8 which many swear are exact copies...

Regards, David

 

[Rodchenko]

Do people collect those? I think they use those.

As with XAs, there are a lot of people after them. Most with more spare cash than me 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi,

What I have against collectors is that they push all the prices up. I saw some Olympus mju-II's on ebay this week and they sold from sixty to eighty pounds.

Regards, David

Dear David,

But who on earth would "collect" such a camera? What's interesting about it? Betcha these prices are users. In fact, barring VERY rare stuff, which usually sold very badly when it was in production (RIFLE, Tri-Lens Turret, etc.) I suggest that collectors and users are about equally to blame for bidding up prices: look at TOODY for example (Thambar). Do you really think that prices would fall a very long way if only users bought these items?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

mm...bayonet mounting lenses, check.

viewfinder/rangefinder combined, check.

longer rangefinder base, check.

single non rotating shutter, check.

built in lightmeter (for the III model), check.

And all this happened almost 20 years before the M3, that didn't invent anything but incorporated all these important features (more important thant the parallax compensation already offered by Zeiss' multifinder turret and the automatically selecting grid that was never used by Leica after the M3, as far as I remember) in a Leica format.

The moral of the fable is not that the Contax was the best rangefinder ever, but that until the 60s there were many RFs built by many companies and some of them were quite remarkable (Contax, M3, Leningrad, Canon 7, Nikon SP etc...).

Of all these models just the Leica survived merely for fashion reasons and after the transformation of what used to be one of the best camera makers in a luxury brand.

All of this IMO, of course.

By chance, perhaps. Or perhaps inertia. Or a constant update of much better lenses than the competition. Or maybe it was simply the best design. But fashion? No, I think that's completely indefensible. What on earth was more "fashionable" about a Leica than a Contax, Nikon, Canon, Casca, Voigtländer (Prominent), Hensoldt, Robot, Nicca...?

Would you attribute the survival of Lobb shoes to fashion? Or Morgan cars? No. There are always people want what they see as the best and are prepared to pay for it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

I have no intentions of ever trying to bend anyone's words. My only intention is to try to understand their true meaning. The Socratic method works as well as any.
In this case you're quite right about the "as well as" I misread that part. My apologies.

No problem at all. I just didn't want what I meant to be misinterpreted. 🙂 I have no ill feelings towards collectors, family and friends photographers, Pros, or artists. I'm sure I can find something to talk about with all of them.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . I would have said that the post war Leitz lenses once they'd started coating them were real Contax killers. . . .

Dear David,

Very likely true. With the exception of the Biogon, Contax lenses rapidly fell further and further behind Leitz. This was because historically Zeiss lenses were designed for higher contrast and lower resolution. Once coating closed the contrast gap, as you say, Leitz won hands down.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

"If today was 1938 and I had to choose a rangefinder I'll definitely buy a Contax, not a Leica II or III, so the M3 was the "Contax killer"?
Leica was NOT the contax killer.. It was the russkis that took the parts, people and assembly lines to southern Russia as "war prize" Nobody really wanted them after that, not even the newly designed Contax IIa. it was beaten by Nikon and canon RF`s, Leica just stayed afloat and will stay that way for quite a time more...Why Nikon S3 and SP reissues were not huge hits, why canon has not made a rangefinder body again... They see you cannot beat leica at it`s own game.

 

[uhoh7]

From FM an very intertesting

Tariq Gibran wrote:

sculptormic wrote:
There will be programmable in camera lens correction possibilitys.

Scroll down ans watch the video - lens compensation -(coming soon)
http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/products/o4j5/index.html#overview

You can set up all your favourite lens profiles and save them!

A very neat feature!

That makes it pretty obvious Sony is going after rangefinder users.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

people who try to tell others what is or is not art, make egregious generalizations about specific situations or tell folks how it "really is" when it's not that way for me

I think it's the "kick the cat" syndrome.

 

[uhoh7]

MF FF Emount Zeiss anyone?

Tariq Gibran wrote:

snapsy wrote:
Zeiss working on lenses for the A7(r):

Q: Will the ZM lenses be available for E mount (autofocus I suppose) or do you plan to develop new lenses specially suited to digital photography for it?

A: We are currently working on manual focus lenses for these new full-frame CSCs. They will have an interface to provide EXIF data to the camera. They are expected to be in stores by the end of 2014. However, we cannot provide any additional infos right now.

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...47741077.31755.139898342687081&type=1&theater

That's pretty wild that they are working on manual focus lenses.

 

[Wulfthari]

By chance, perhaps. Or perhaps inertia. Or a constant update of much better lenses than the competition. Or maybe it was simply the best design. But fashion? No, I think that's completely indefensible. What on earth was more "fashionable" about a Leica than a Contax, Nikon, Canon, Casca, Voigtländer (Prominent), Hensoldt, Robot, Nicca...?

Would you attribute the survival of Lobb shoes to fashion? Or Morgan cars? No. There are always people want what they see as the best and are prepared to pay for it.

Cheers,

R.

Best design...not quite, and yes I think that the "fashion" factor played a big part in the survival of Leica AFTER the "good" models were out of production, today it's jsut a luxury brand like another one.

Contax was killed by Zeiss (they didn't evolve the camera for 20 years), Nikon and Canon moved to the more profitable market of SLR, the others were small players in a big game.

As a matter of fact at the times of the M3 and M4 Leica concentrated all his efforts to make a better camera because of competition, once the golden age of RF had finished they just remained in that business by sheer luck because they also thought the RF was over and focused on Leicaflexes...it didn't work that well!

"If today was 1938 and I had to choose a rangefinder I'll definitely buy a Contax, not a Leica II or III, so the M3 was the "Contax killer"?
Leica was NOT the contax killer.. It was the russkis that took the parts, people and assembly lines to southern Russia as "war prize" Nobody really wanted them after that, not even the newly designed Contax IIa. it was beaten by Nikon and canon RF`s, Leica just stayed afloat and will stay that way for quite a time more...Why Nikon S3 and SP reissues were not huge hits, why canon has not made a rangefinder body again... They see you cannot beat leica at it`s own game.

Mate, sorry but I can't follow:are you saying that Zeiss didn't sell any Contax IIA and IIIA after the war? Do you realise that before the invention of the M3 the Leicas were outdated by most of the competitors?

Regarding the Russkies, they didn't kill Contax: the Kievs were meant for their internal market, and while they updated the Leica design (Zorki and Feds) they did nothing to the Contax because they recognised the quality of the project and they produced them for 40 years.

Today the rangefinder market doesn't exist anymore, it survives as "luxury brand" for few people, the average photographer uses SLRs so I'm surprised to see that the Nikon reissues didn't sell in big numbers but just to collectors for a nostalgic value...who would buy a brand new camera from the 60s while he can get a used one for one fifth of the price? Leica's game today seems to rebrand Panasonic cameras and sell them for double the price, I'm afraid.

Why pick on Nikon, they sold every last one they made, and even ran off a few thousand extra in black, all at full price.

The problem is -- the game Leica is playing is not one which is going to make a lot of money for anyone but the Leica, so there are not any other players. No one else has the Brand that Leica does.

Yesssir!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Best design...not quite, and yes I think that the "fashion" factor played a big part in the survival of Leica AFTER the "good" models were out of production, today it's jsut a luxury brand like another one.

Contax was killed by Zeiss (they didn't evolve the camera for 20 years), Nikon and Canon moved to the more profitable market of SLR, the others were small players in a big game.

As a matter of fact at the times of the M3 and M4 Leica concentrated all his efforts to make a better camera because of competition, once the golden age of RF had finished they just remained in that business by sheer luck because they also thought the RF was over and focused on Leicaflexes...it didn't work that well!
. . .
Today the rangefinder market doesn't exist anymore, it survives as "luxury brand" for few people, the average photographer uses SLRs so I'm surprised to see that the Nikon reissues didn't sell in big numbers but just to collectors for a nostalgic value...who would buy a brand new camera from the 60s while he can get a used one for one fifth of the price? Leica's game today seems to rebrand Panasonic cameras and sell them for double the price, I'm afraid.

The highlights are impressively indefensible statements.

WHAT other luxury brands does the Leica resemble? Lobb shoes? Range Rovers? What on earth could "any other" mean in this context? And if you want a digital RF, how much choice have you? At least you can buy other shoes or four-wheel drives.

As for "the rangefinder market doesn't exist any more", this is the sheerest nonsense. Who buys Bessas, then? And who cares what the "average photographer" uses? You might as well say that there's no market for motorcycles any more, because the "average driver" has a car.

And "Contax was killed by Zeiss"? You admit yourself that Zeiss didn't develop the Contax for 20 years. By this you presumably mean that it eventually died because it was hopelessly outdated. Another way of phrasing it is to say that the Leica survived because it was the better design.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Turtle]

IMO there are two main reasons people get excited by 'Leica Killers':

1. People who cannot afford a Leica, but want something 'kinda similar' and are pleased as punch when affordable alternatives hit the market. They assume (rightly or wrongly) that they will do damage to Leica.

2. People who WANT Leica to go down the plughole, because they're irritated that they cannot afford them and so resent the company for highlighting their sense of pecuniary inadequacy. Some can afford them, but consider Leica pricing as an affront to 'reason' and want Leica to die off all the same.

Yes, Leica is a luxury brand, but the M series digital cameras do offer things nobody else does, with utility some believe (or know) contributes towards their picture taking. This second sentence is one that group 2 above will always reject because, quite frankly, they are not listening (or if they are, don't believe you) because they are too caught up in their own issues to empathise with yours.

 

[FrozenInTime]

Most of us here bought into Leica because we love the size,quality and now love the rangefinder focusing.
Newcomers can mow get the first two and the SLR like focusing they are accustomed to; persuading SLR users of the benefits of Leica on rangefinder focusing alone is going to be an increasingly uphill battle.
Quality full frame is no longer a single horse race : Leica will have to evolve.

 

[Lss]

persuading SLR users of the benefits of Leica on rangefinder focusing alone is going to be an increasingly uphill battle.

On a photography forum or in camera reviews it's probably so. Given the prices and availability of digital rangefinder cameras, I guess the story pretty much ends there.

I believe many would like and even prefer rangefinder focusing if they ever had a proper chance to try it (and many would not like it). Reading about other people's views is just not the same thing. This is my own experience coming to rangefinder cameras with a long SLR/DSLR background. Figuring out what works for me only required an open mind to buy an Epson R-D1 without ever seeing one (!). A modern low-cost alternative to a Leica would help, but it is very unlikely to happen.

 

[Scrambler]

Leica's business model doesn't go head-to-head with someone like Sony.

To go back to Roger's Range Rover example, in the late 1970's there was only one other vehicle that could compete with Range Rover for technological innovation. Like an RR it had permanent 4wd and 4 wheel coil spring suspension. Ahead of any other 4wd it had IFS and monocoque construction, features Range Rover would not embrace until the 21st century. It was a fraction of the price of a Range Rover.

It was a Lada Niva.

It was no threat to Range Rover's market. I don't think that a Sony is really a threat to Leica, at any price point.

I think the OP missed the colloquial meaning of "killer" as many have pointed out. Why the rest of us are here I don't really know. Perhaps we really are obsessed?

 

[David Hughes]

Dear David,

But who on earth would "collect" such a camera? What's interesting about it? Betcha these prices are users. In fact, barring VERY rare stuff, which usually sold very badly when it was in production (RIFLE, Tri-Lens Turret, etc.) I suggest that collectors and users are about equally to blame for bidding up prices: look at TOODY for example (Thambar). Do you really think that prices would fall a very long way if only users bought these items?

Cheers,

R.

Hi,

Well, I can't defend them but I'll say that I've noticed that mentioning a camera on a forum like this pushes up prices. And, as for collectors, people often buy things to complete the set. But why bother?

Anyway, I can think of a lot of users that are nothing like the mju-II's price* and yet just as good. Meaning judging by the prints and slides I get out of them. But I'm not going to mention them as I don't want to push the price up.

Regards, David

* Oddly enough a "Limited Edition" one went for a lot less than the £80 one and it was in a box etc, etc.

 

[David Hughes]

Snip! Snip! ... Regarding the Russkies, they didn't kill Contax: the Kievs were meant for their internal market, and while they updated the Leica design (Zorki and Feds) they did nothing to the Contax because they recognised the quality of the project and they produced them for 40 years... Yesssir!

Hi,

Talking to technicians I'd have said that they recognized the design as a nightmare and didn't bother.

But they did take a lot of Contax features and Leica features and combine them in that paragon the FED 2. And the same goes for a lot of accessories like the reloadable cassettes, view-finders etc. It's thanks to the sense of the designers in the USSR that you can get a version of the Leica II with a screw thread Sonnar version (FED 1 & J-8) and nothing wrong with it either.

More or less the same game that the Japanese were taking then.

Regards, David

 

[j j]

Is there a such a thing as a Leica killer obsession? There's this thread and its pages of outrage over "they" being obsessed. But I can't find "they" on the net. A couple of mentions in a couple of forums. And this thread. Lots of this thread. There is a Yorkshire conservation starter "Whats tha know: owt or nowt?" This seems like nowt to me.