Worth it????

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
7:26 PM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
The Leica rangefinders are unique in one other way than their rangefinder focusing. There is certainly more copy on internet photo sites on whether Leicas are worth their high price than price discussions of any other brand of camera. Opinions range from yes to no, to film vs. digital, from hand assembled rock to inadequate antique, to basic street camera to conspicuous consumption bling. What I prize about Leicas is the simplicity of their operating controls. It lets me spend more time concentrating on the subject and less time dealing with the camera. What I dislike is an extremely expensive camera with limited applications. I think this forum is relatively unique in that we can discuss rangefinder cameras without turning into hysterical extremists. I’d like to know how you feel about Leica rangefinders, both film and digital. Are they worth it and if so, why?
 
Leica RF is a schizophrenic camera..
Luv em...and hate em..
I buy the lenses..but diggie bodies...no way..
They sell em..but they wont fix em..
Feels so good..until they break...
Rich mans cam..poor mans desire..
Art cam..but most use to take pics of their dog & cat..
Fat M240..skinny M10 and CL..
Past film cams great..current models..well..
Whacko expensive soft Thambar from 80 years ago..then super sharp modern..
The list goes on and on..
 
I’ve only bought used Leica film camera bodies. Used lenses as well except for one 50 f2.4 Summarit.

I don’t own any Leica digital cameras.

With Leica film cameras I like the idea they can be refurbished, last forever, at least in my lifetime.
 
Digital no, far too expensive with large depreciation combined with very poor service.

Film cameras yes, they are finished depreciating and can be serviced by many techs in short order.
 
While M-E is for sensor issue, I'm checking if other cameras are worth it. Was just looking at Ricoh GRII, X70, A7 pictures. I checked Canon 6D as well. I don't know.... I guess I have to check Sony A7something...
For now I use my C-41 films and M, LTM lenses on film RF cameras. M including. :)
 
As you say, with the M2 no ‘mode’ problems. Always on. (Sometimes I have a moment wondering whether I coded the 28 correctly on that camera.)

So the digital Ms kept all my lenses in play another ten years and more. And stopped me buying into another system.

I had the pleasure of introducing someone to HC-B’s photographs recently and he wondered what HC-B might use now. I told him one theory is the iPhone. But I told him that the immediacy, simplicity and compact unobtrusiveness he favoured might still be best served by his first Leica, or perhaps the IIIf with a 50 Elmar and the SBOOI finder.

So the RF is still in play.

Do love the X100 too though.
 
They can't compete with the major brands because of several reasons and that's why they have a niche targeted market but I'd be happy to see a more affordable Leica M. Perhaps a cropped senor in a cheaper magnesium alloy body.

I'm happy with my M8 but it's getting old. My much older M4-P is strangely not however.
 
I don't have a digital Leica. The Barnacks - and more recently the Leica/Minolta CL - I find unsurpassed for simplicity and speed of operation, compact size, great lens selection, and ability to use without any reliance on electronics at all. They're still the best tools out there for my needs and imaging preferences.
 
If I was making money taking pictures:

Used film cameras, yes, new, welllllllllllllllll I'm not sure.

Digital M's yes, yes, YES!!! Simplicity, options, quality, control, flexibility.

While Fuji is catching on somewhat, Ricoh too. Nikon clueless, how many buttons does the Df have?

For the rest of us they are a bit on the pricey side, but the save if have M glass off sets the deep dive required.

B2 (;->
 
Not worth it for me, as most cameras can be cajoled into giving me images that work. I enjoyed my time with an M4P; a digital Leica will probably never find time its way into my bag. I don't have a cache of lenses (a strong reason for giving a digital M a whirl) in any mount, so brand "loyalty" is not a concept I adhere to, though I do have a soft spot for Fuji MF cameras! We all rationalize our choices to some extent, but Leica is in line with other expensive positional goods that promotes itself to a customer base that view themselves as savy connoisseurs of technical perfection. Once you cross a point in the continuum you pay more for less for almost any positional good. Nothing new here. After all, they're not selling bells and whistles, are they? Does the emperor wear new clothes? Looking in a mirror won't let you know, nor will the rabble on 'net forums. It will just confirm what you already think you know! Might as well enjoy it.:angel:
 
It depends... years ago I already knew that I would never spend that kind of cash after I retired, so I picked up my IIIf, MP, and assorted lenses while I was still working. If you ask me if they are worth purchasing today I would say (in my case) no. I am happy as a clam that I made the decision prior to retirement - it's like thinking a tax refund is a bonus rather than money you loaned the government interest free.

Since Fuji ACROS 100 will be discontinued later this year (10-2018) and if I was still working the Monochrom would be "worth it" ; )
 
I have three film M bodies but for digital I need something more versatile which will , if required, take longer focal lengths.
The Sony cams fit this bill and I can use my M lenses on them for day to day stuff.
That and what others have said regarding cost and reliability of the M bodies ..... for me it doesn`t add up.
The Leica SL would fit the bill but again I can find something more cost effective in a digital age.

I`ve always been a left eye shooter anyway so the benefit of an RF is largely lost on me although I do continue to enjoy my film bodies .
 
If it is just about getting a picture then I can do that just as easily with my Pentax K1000.

But I really enjoy working with rangefinder cameras, which includes my Leica LTMs, my Leica Ms and my Zeiss Ikon. For pure enjoyment the Zeiss Ikon is the best of the bunch in my opinion. If the shutter would only work when the battery went flat it would be absolutely perfect.

Any digital camera is a necessary evil at best. At least I can use all my Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses with my M 262 so, on that basis, for me it remains worth it. If I have to use digital it may as well be Leica.
 
I don't have a digital RF, only film RF. In my opinion, it's not about the tool but the final product - the picture. Great tools can simplify the process and allow you to get what you envision. But the corollary of this is also true, as long as you are familiar with the camera/system, you can get what you want out of it. To this end any camera, digital or film, RF or not, can satisfy my requirement. Is Leica RF worth it? Yes, for me, because I like the tactile response and ease of operation. Also because as others have pointed out, Leica film bodies have already been depreciated so I don't have a high barrier of entry to worry about.
 
For a long time I wanted one. Finally, close to retirement bought a M4-2 and a couple of CV lenses. Turned out I liked my OM-1 more. Guess I wasn’t a RF sort after all.
 
I only own Leica film cameras, and they're definitely 'worth it' for me.

The reasons are:

They suit the way I work

Light and easy to carry - I don't own a car

High quality lenses have always been available for them over the years

I've found them to be very reliable in use - despite what I read on the interweb!!

Finally, as the old Photojournalists used to say to me many years ago, always have a Leica in your bag - because when (never if..) you're short of money they're always worth something. This turned out to be sage advice indeed!

John
 
It worries me that, from time to time, I hear or read comments to the effect that they don't wear out and don't need servicing and so on. I figure that those untouched ones will only get touched by a technician when it is far too late...

I'm also amazed by the silly myths surrounding them that should be obviously wrong to anyone who has handled a couple or read about them.

But I do like them.

Regards, David
 
Among my many analog film cameras, I enjoy Leica film rangefinders the most: M2, M6 Classic, and two IIIf's. They are worth it to me for their organic ease-of-use (maybe a bit less-so for the Barnacks), and I enjoy their heft and build quality.

I purchased the M6 new in late 80's with period glass, but since then, all other purchases have been used and I don't have any interest in their digital bodies or new offerings.
 
I shot two Leica M6 bodies for several years, but kept going back to the Olympus OM-4T bodies I have used since I was a kid. I was getting better results from them. My work is too formalist for something with such inaccurate viewfinders; I found myself having to crop the photos a lot to get what I saw in the framelines. Never an issue with an SLR, and the Olympus was actually smaller and lighter than a Leica M6!

Now, I'm shooting an Olympus Pen-F mirrorless digital, and it is perfect for the work I do. So tiny and light, with SHARP lenses, and very inexpensive for the incredible image quality it and its lenses give.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom