Worth it????

[pgk]

Yes, actually it is. But, whether you agree depends on how much you like futzing around rings, knobs, dials and tabs though.

But at the end of the day the most important settings are aperture, shutter speed and focus - ISO too but mostly I, at least, just leave this at base. And I can see ALL these relevant settings at a glance at an M RF. The 'futzing' around with myriad settings through numerous dials and menus drives me to distraction - and as I use an A7II and Canons too, I'm used to appalling interfaces - most of the time they pre-set on manual anyway so that I know where I'm up to when I pick them up. The point is that an M RF is more or less as simplistic in operation as possible whereas, until its adjusted and set correctly, an AF camera is not.

And FWIW I remember watching a documentary on an advertising photographer who got his assistant to trip the shutter after he'd set the shot up so pressing the shutter was not what photography was about for him.

 

[kiemchacsu]

Yes, it worth (my case film M cameras only)
While I can do quite the same things with Nikon F cameras, I still prefer the way Leica handle the job: the unique rangefinder experience, the iconic industrial design, the terrific lenses quality and most importanly, I like using M camera more than any others

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?

 

[leicapixie]

As a camera system incl. lenses the Leica-M is not worth the cost,
considering what else is available.
That is the "accountant view".
Reality, with its need for care, regular check-ups and services,
requires expensive maintenance.
In the field, the M becomes a living "thing" in ones usage.
Simple and direct, for rapid capture of a "moment".
Sure the rapid rate of most modern cameras, leave it standing still!
The art is nailing that precise moment.
Leica and its Fans have created many forums where our joy is shared!
Canon, Nikon, Sony and Hasselblad etc. have no similar share of ordinary folks often showing extraordinary images.
Only a few "master Pros" decorate feeble sites!
The Leica-M is the pure camera.
A joy to use, a companion and a living diary.

 

[Kevcaster]

YES! Well worth it.
What more can be said about value, here is one more consideration. if you buy an analogue Leica MA from Park Cameras you will pay £3450.00. This camera will almost certainly last for your lifetime and that of your offspring - 50 years with a service or two. Amortise that over the period and it works out to £62 each year about £1.33 each week. What else that you buy this year (apart from a property) will represent better value for your money? After 50 years your progeny will probably flog it and receive about the same as the purchase price towards their next space jaunt.
All the digitals, of course, will be landfill. Landfill unless Leica can achieve the holy grail of user updatable sensors and electronics that do not self-destruct. But then, all electronic devices will be landfill. An new iPhone costs nearly £1000 and will certainly be landfill within 7-10 years.
So are Leicas worth it? Yes they are. Are they the best camera? Best for you? I have no idea about this.
i just spent £175 on a B&W printing course with Nick Jones at Photofusion in London, I'll never see that money again. Was it worth it? Yes it was.

 

[mich rassena]

I've bought all of my film cameras used, and they usually needed service. Once that was done, they have worked well. I find that the Leicas seem to need more tuning up periodically compared to the Nikons. My Nikon F and F2A (x2) have been serviced by Sover Wong, and they just keep working great. However, these Nikon cameras are now rather heavy for 35mm film. If I want to use 35mm film, I tend to use the Leicas or a Henry Scherer serviced Contax IIa. Small, compact cameras with outstanding lenses.

What put the 35mm cameras in perspective is that I've been moving towards medium format. The Fuji GS645 is as small (or smaller) than a 35mm camera, and gives a very pleasant image. What has really opened my eyes has been the Mamiya TLR system. I started with a Mamiyaflex C2 for sale on RFF here, with two lenses and other accessories for under $200. Then I bought a C220f on RFF.
The capabilities of these Mamiya TLR cameras, and how inexpensive they are, they have reset my idea of value vs benefits. No matter how exquisitely made the Leica cameras are, and how great the Leica lenses are, the cheap Mamiya TLRs 6x6cm images still beats Leica's 35mm tiny frame.

The Mamiya C series is an incredible bargain at today's prices. There's just no substitute for the larger negative size. The Leica M series could arguably be the best 35mm camera ever made but it still would only be the best in its class.

 

[Ronald M]

Had a Waltz Envoy with Nikor 50 2.0 in College, early 60`s. Seemed adequate, but I knew little.

Bought extensive Pentax system 1966. Never could get monochrome quality of the sample books at camera shop. Then I was loaned a M3 Leica. Success after 15 years of trying. Also bought a 125 Hector and intermixed it with Takumar glass on slide film. Difference was large.

Had a Yashica TLR, RB67, Mamiya 330. Leica was what I wanted.

Son bought a used M8 6 years ago. I followed suit while his was still in mail.

Also have a bunch of Nikon pro digitals. Nikons are close to Leica, but not the same and gap has narrowed.

Conclusion is Nikon is for cash strapped and those who do not want a rangefinder.

Nikon glass (current) seems to lack micro contrast. Makes wonderful people pictures that need little retouching. Leica makes a world class model look bad. Best case is hire a makeup person for pro shoot and use Leica or learn to do high end retouching.

In general I would say TODAY stay away from Leica unless you have way more cash than you need.

 

[PhotoGog]

Worth it????

A timely thread for me to read, given my recent decision to get out of the M system.
I have enjoyed my M6TTL for the past year, having owned a M2 before that. In that time I was always on the holy grail towards pairing it with a 35 Summicron - beginning with the modest CV 35/2.5, then saving up for the Zeiss C Biogon 35/2.8, then got lucky and scored a mint Summicron at a great price. So there it was: my so-called dream set up. Except I am not sure if it was my dream or just one imposed on me by the usual Leica delirium. Sold the other two lenses (there were some experiments and more $$$ with 50mms in between) and considered it an expensive exercise to get to where I thought I wanted to be from the beginning.
In the meantime, I had started using a Pentax 67 owned by a friend. And it dawned on me: the M is great but it will always output to a postage stamp sized negative. Did I notice anything special about the Summicron? I tend to think I wanted to so, yes, a wee bit, but in reality I do not think it casts images in gold. Just another good lens among many. I no longer wanted to be that guy - no offence to RFF members - that carried around a combo worth $5,000+. And speaking of carrying, play hard or go home as always been my motto, so the beastly 67 is just fine hand held for me. The negatives it is capable of producing is worth the extra workout. I love it. I do not care for the argument of discrete shooting either - I do not take photographs of the back of heads and call it street photography. With the 67 one must confront the subject and be confronted in return. Like I said, play hard.
For much less than the cost of the Summicron I have gobbled up a mint 67 kit with 55/4, 105/2.4 and 200/4, and a heap of accessories. For my 35mm alternative I am keeping my F3 with CV 40/2 pancake. It can do everything the M6 can, just differently.
By the time I sell the M6TTL with Summicron I will have paid for the 67 and have a few thousand left over to go back into savings. And my two years of M GAS will be over. Not saddened or worried about regret at all. Like someone else said on this thread: for some (not all), the M is the best in its class. But I am no longer playing in that class. 67 is where it is at, especially when a $200 used lens on that system can blow away anything Leica can stump up.

 

[pgk]

Whether anything is worth what you pay for it is really a question only individuals can answer for themselves. M equipment can be had for surprisingly little money if you don't mind poor cosmetics (some of mine is very far from collectable). And it retains its value well. I've bought and sold and upgraded over the last decade or so until I've ended up with what I wanted, but at a far lower price than if I'd bought it all in one go. For me M equipment is very 'worth it'. I've taken some of my favourite photographs with it and its 'simplistic' interface suits my way of working. I could have taken equally good images using other gear (Leica glass is very good but not unique in being 'the best' any more) but I wouldn't have, and that is to me why I use M stuff and why its worth my while paying for it.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

It is but in the same way that applying paint to paper with a paintbrush is the essence of painting - but nothing to do with art.

Photography like painting requires understanding. The Leica M distills this into the photographer who, if he/she understands technique, has all the relevant parameters in the simplest of controls. Pressing the shutter on an AF camera all too often permits decisions to be taken away from the photographer.

A camera is a tool. Nothing is taken away from the photographer who uses a digital camera.

 

[Sumarongi]

A camera is a tool. Nothing is taken away from the photographer who uses a digital camera.

Depends.

**Any feature is a bug unless it can be turned off.** (Daniel Bell Heuer's Law.)

 

[icebear]

Depends.

**Any feature is a bug unless it can be turned off.** (Daniel Bell Heuer's Law.)

priceless 😀

... I had never heard about Daniel Bell Heuer before, obviously a pretty sharp mind.

 

[Dogman]

A digital camera takes away the ability to produce a photograph. The user is only able to produce files that can later be turned into prints.

I do not understand. Does not a film camera produce negatives that are turned into photographic prints? Do the negatives have no value until they're printed? Was it the egg or the chicken that came first and which one crossed the road and why?

Let's all stop being silly on this digital vs film crap. There's room for all--old photographic processes to current digital. We're photographers dammit! We're better than this.

 

[icebear]

I only shoot film, so I can't comment on digital Leicas....

Having said that, the images they produce [1]for me are no better than those ...

I use my other equipment much more, but I keep my M2 because it's still worth owning and using in the right situations. It's a great travel camera for city breaks, for instance. It also gives me a lot of pleasure to own something that's so beautiful, well made and which I could have never afforded when new.

So for me: yes, totally worth it. But for most photographers, to be brutally honest (and I hate to say this), I'd advise them not to bother.[2]

A digital camera takes away the ability to produce a photograph. [3]The user is only able to produce files that can later be turned into prints.

Interesting...
I totally agree with your statement [2] but from my point of view you miss the mark in
[1] ... it is not the camera which produces the image.
[3] ... do you think you are able to tell from a framed print on a wall that you view from 4 ft away if it was made using a film or digital camera to begin with? You can have a (wet) contact print made from a digitally printed image on a transparant carrier (aka digital negative) and you end up with a traditional wet developed print, either basic silver print or even Pt or Pd print.

 

[Michael Markey]

I use my other equipment much more, but I keep my M2 because it's still worth owning and using in the right situations.
So for me: yes, totally worth it. But for most photographers, to be brutally honest (and I hate to say this), I'd advise them not to bother.

Well there`s always a first time and I totally agree with you on this bit 🙂
Knowing what I know now and after ten or more years of using them I pretty sure that I wouldn`t take the same path again.

Lovely things .... but too limited in their application for me.

 

[jsrockit]

A digital camera takes away the ability to produce a photograph. The user is only able to produce files that can later be turned into prints.

Yawn... ...

 

[Richard G]

It’s going off a bit.

Obviously not worth it.

But can you price the pleasure and engagement with the tool? Artists are more interested in making things than things made as Michael A Smith has it. The feeling of using an M2 or iiif or even the Monochrom affects the result.

 

[leicapixie]

I am saddened when photographers cannot see difference in quality that come out of a Leica-M FILM camera!
Looking at negatives, sometimes a roll shared by SLR(Pentax-Nikon-Canon)
and my Leica-M23,6.
The negatives look different, somehow more details, a crisper look even though many of my lenses are low contrast!
Film exposed in The Japanese SLR are ALWAYS more grainy!
If you don't believe read "Tao of Photography" for the reason.
I discovered it decades ago when I shot fashion and reportage.
Even scanning(a primitive obscene way to print} WILL PROVE THIS.
I have used the M-8, in JPEG!
I did not have access to Photoshop for it!
The results were beautiful.
So maybe 38 or 105th in comparison means nothing,
if not used with Leica lenses.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I am saddened when photographers cannot see difference in quality that come out of a Leica-M FILM camera!
Looking at negatives, sometimes a roll shared by SLR(Pentax-Nikon-Canon)
and my Leica-M23,6.
The negatives look different, somehow more details, a crisper look even though many of my lenses are low contrast!
Film exposed in The Japanese SLR are ALWAYS more grainy!
If you don't believe read "Tao of Photography" for the reason.
I discovered it decades ago when I shot fashion and reportage.
Even scanning(a primitive obscene way to print} WILL PROVE THIS.
I have used the M-8, in JPEG!
I did not have access to Photoshop for it!
The results were beautiful.
So maybe 38 or 105th in comparison means nothing,
if not used with Leica lenses.

You're four days late with the April Fools joke.

I shot two Leica M6 bodies with both Leica and Zeiss ZM lenses for several years, and have been shooting with Olympus OM gear since I was 8 years old. I've also used Canon EOS, Canon FD, and Nikon 35mm SLRs. In medium format, I have shot with Mamiya 645, Mamiya 6, Mamiya TLR, Rolleiflex, and Hasselblad equipment.

There has NEVER, ever, EVER been a difference in grain between shots on the same film with the same film size, developed in the same developer. The film has no clue what camera it was used in.

 

[ptpdprinter]

There has NEVER, ever, EVER been a difference in grain between shots on the same film with the same film size, developed in the same developer. The film has no clue what camera it was used in.

You are being entirely too rational. He is relying on religion to support his belief, so all bets are off.

 

[jsrockit]

I am saddened when photographers cannot see difference in quality that come out of a Leica-M FILM camera!
Looking at negatives, sometimes a roll shared by SLR(Pentax-Nikon-Canon)
and my Leica-M23,6.
The negatives look different, somehow more details, a crisper look even though many of my lenses are low contrast

There could be minor differences in how the lenses perform for sure... BUT

Film exposed in The Japanese SLR are ALWAYS more grainy!

But this.... :bang: