This is exactly why I changed too... for me, Fujifilm had the Leica spirit enough and added an accurate EVF plus optical VF... plus AF. Now I can't go back.
webOSUser
Well-known
Not to me. I respect the Leica cameras, but too expensive for me. When I want to shoot 35mm rangefinder, my FSU FED2 and Zorki 1 do a great job.
Steve W.
Steve W.
Dogman
Veteran
I've owned three Leica film bodies, an M4-P and a pair of M6's. I thought they were worth it at the times I used them. Today, not so much. By the time I sold the last of my Leica equipment I had become afflicted with aging eyes that didn't play well with rangefinder focusing...or any type of manual focusing, come to think of it.
Leica's simplicity of operation is attractive. All the digital cameras coming along in the last few years have too much stuff on them. I don't want a multi-task device, I want a camera that takes still pictures and doesn't require an advanced degree in electronics. Leica appears to understand this. Unfortunately, delivering less means paying more and they're out of my range. Also, there's that autofocus thing that I really don't want to do without.
I became a better photographer after using Leicas. They taught me to look closely and shoot loosely. Today I use Fuji digital viewfinder bodies the same way I used my Leica film bodies in the past. Of course, they're not rangefinders but the brightlines in the OVF maintains "Leica-esque" framing. The overall experience is not exactly the same but, in many ways, it's more fulfilling. Plus Fuji's optics are superb and compare very favorably with the Leica lenses I used in the past (with the added benefit of autofocus).
Leica's simplicity of operation is attractive. All the digital cameras coming along in the last few years have too much stuff on them. I don't want a multi-task device, I want a camera that takes still pictures and doesn't require an advanced degree in electronics. Leica appears to understand this. Unfortunately, delivering less means paying more and they're out of my range. Also, there's that autofocus thing that I really don't want to do without.
I became a better photographer after using Leicas. They taught me to look closely and shoot loosely. Today I use Fuji digital viewfinder bodies the same way I used my Leica film bodies in the past. Of course, they're not rangefinders but the brightlines in the OVF maintains "Leica-esque" framing. The overall experience is not exactly the same but, in many ways, it's more fulfilling. Plus Fuji's optics are superb and compare very favorably with the Leica lenses I used in the past (with the added benefit of autofocus).
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I've bought two Leica's "New" over the years and many used. Of the two "New" ones, the M6TTL I purchased in 2000 has definitely earned its keep in the last 18 years and I have no regrets laying out the $1998 it cost brand new, back then. I also have an M-E that I purchased new, and although it has served me well, can't say yet whether it will be worth the $4000+ it cost in 2015.
No question, the used M2, M8.2 and M3's I've bought over the years were definitely worth what I paid for them in the pleasure they gave me in years of use.
Best,
-Tim
No question, the used M2, M8.2 and M3's I've bought over the years were definitely worth what I paid for them in the pleasure they gave me in years of use.
Best,
-Tim
farlymac
PF McFarland
It's taken me a long time to come around to a point where I would consider buying a Leica rangefinder camera. I first tried out a Zorki-1 to see if I would like the form factor, and dealing with the separate focus and framing viewers. It wasn't that bad, but I still preferred to have them merged into one, so I continued buying Zorki's because they made changes in the basic Barnack design that I liked, such as combined view/rangefinders, and 1:1 viewfinders.
I've gotten some true LTM cameras since then, since the FSU ones can be a bit problematic. One Leica lens, Nikon, Canon, Nicca, and Yashica lenses and bodies for a basic kit of 35-50-100 no matter which body was in use. The Nicca for that classic Barnack look and feel. Canon P for a streamlined use. And the Yashica YF for an almost M like functionality.
So after all this practicing with the different variants, I've narrowed it down to my next rangefinder should be either a IIIG, or an M2. The IIIG because it has all the improvements made to the Barnack design, and the M2 for it's simplicity, plus it can mount my LTM and R lenses via use of adapters.
That is, once I can fit one into the budget. I find it hard to save up for a Leica, when there are all these other competent systems around at more down to earth prices. And my Nikon S2/Bessa R2S kit gets more of the attention. Yeah, combined range and focus 1:1 viewfinders, with bayonet mount lenses. I guess the Leicas can wait.
PF
I've gotten some true LTM cameras since then, since the FSU ones can be a bit problematic. One Leica lens, Nikon, Canon, Nicca, and Yashica lenses and bodies for a basic kit of 35-50-100 no matter which body was in use. The Nicca for that classic Barnack look and feel. Canon P for a streamlined use. And the Yashica YF for an almost M like functionality.
So after all this practicing with the different variants, I've narrowed it down to my next rangefinder should be either a IIIG, or an M2. The IIIG because it has all the improvements made to the Barnack design, and the M2 for it's simplicity, plus it can mount my LTM and R lenses via use of adapters.
That is, once I can fit one into the budget. I find it hard to save up for a Leica, when there are all these other competent systems around at more down to earth prices. And my Nikon S2/Bessa R2S kit gets more of the attention. Yeah, combined range and focus 1:1 viewfinders, with bayonet mount lenses. I guess the Leicas can wait.
PF
35photo
Well-known
It really doesn't matter if its worth it... Does the Leica make it want to pick it up and photograph with it, is it inspiring to use? Fundamentally to me this is what its all about... My first camera was an R3(spoiled I know
its the camera my dad had so I used it then moved to a 8008s/Nikon N90 AF which I used for years... I used to always shoot aperture priority and used AF with zoom lenses...Then it got to a point where I wanted something more compact wanted to get away from the zoom.. I think is was somewhere in 2000 I wanted to get an M for a kid just out of school new was out of the question but used was a good option plus I had a screw mount 50 that my dad had from a IIIC and a bayonet adaptor... I found a really nice used M6 on eBay might as well have been brand new for $1400...and eventually got a 35mm f2 APSH for $900 used... It was a challenge to use it no question, trying to figure out how to make it work from me to took a while lots of practice trial and error... In the end it helped make me a better photographer I definitely shot much more looser with it, it made it think about things in advance then when it was showtime I could just act... It eventually just faded away and I could just focus on what was going on in the frame..There is a certain satisfaction when shooting with an M that's almost unlike any other camera I've used... I eventually got an used M9 for $4K 5 years ago was it worth it ah yes... I had a Nikon D800E when it first came out before it yeah spec wise its better and cheaper but I more often than not liked the images from the M9 better...I got spoiled by the Leica lenses for sure..ha.. Honestly I wish I would have gotten an M6 TTL back in the day for one reason only and that is the bigger shutter speed dial and that's why I prefer my M9 to it these days plus I don't shoot film much anymore..The M10 when I saw I didn't even have to see any images from it I knew it was probably the best M they have ever made they were able to slim down that body to M6 size... I see it in my future a couple years down the road... Long story but yes worth it..
its the camera my dad had so I used it then moved to a 8008s/Nikon N90 AF which I used for years... I used to always shoot aperture priority and used AF with zoom lenses...Then it got to a point where I wanted something more compact wanted to get away from the zoom.. I think is was somewhere in 2000 I wanted to get an M for a kid just out of school new was out of the question but used was a good option plus I had a screw mount 50 that my dad had from a IIIC and a bayonet adaptor... I found a really nice used M6 on eBay might as well have been brand new for $1400...and eventually got a 35mm f2 APSH for $900 used... It was a challenge to use it no question, trying to figure out how to make it work from me to took a while lots of practice trial and error... In the end it helped make me a better photographer I definitely shot much more looser with it, it made it think about things in advance then when it was showtime I could just act... It eventually just faded away and I could just focus on what was going on in the frame..There is a certain satisfaction when shooting with an M that's almost unlike any other camera I've used... I eventually got an used M9 for $4K 5 years ago was it worth it ah yes... I had a Nikon D800E when it first came out before it yeah spec wise its better and cheaper but I more often than not liked the images from the M9 better...I got spoiled by the Leica lenses for sure..ha.. Honestly I wish I would have gotten an M6 TTL back in the day for one reason only and that is the bigger shutter speed dial and that's why I prefer my M9 to it these days plus I don't shoot film much anymore..The M10 when I saw I didn't even have to see any images from it I knew it was probably the best M they have ever made they were able to slim down that body to M6 size... I see it in my future a couple years down the road... Long story but yes worth it..
icebear
Veteran
YES.
My very first Leica was used M6, later a 2nd body followed. A used MP and later a M3 (also used...of course). At some point a used M9 followed and a new MM. The latter is my most used camera of all times and it is inspiring to use.
When you are able to use a 50 year old M3, you can pick up a MM or M10 and start shooting.You can concentrate on capturing the image that you see. You don't have to RTF 400 page manual first.
It is you who is taking the image and not some camera algorithm of 1 out of 20 different scene modes.
The image is the result of your decisions and not the built in camera artificial "intelligence".
My very first Leica was used M6, later a 2nd body followed. A used MP and later a M3 (also used...of course
). At some point a used M9 followed and a new MM. The latter is my most used camera of all times and it is inspiring to use.When you are able to use a 50 year old M3, you can pick up a MM or M10 and start shooting.You can concentrate on capturing the image that you see. You don't have to RTF 400 page manual first.
It is you who is taking the image and not some camera algorithm of 1 out of 20 different scene modes.
The image is the result of your decisions and not the built in camera artificial "intelligence".
JP Owens
Well-known
I've owned most of the Leica film cameras from the IIIc to the M6 over the years. The M2 and the M5 were the only ones that I used extensively, though, with the M5 being my favorite.
Were they worth it? They were never versatile enough for me to use as my primary camera; but, I think they are worth it. For many photographers, the Leica is the holy grail of cameras. Everyone who feels that way should own a Leica. You may love it...you may hate it...but it's an itch that is hard to scratch until you actually own one.
I no longer own a Leica. They are not eye glass or old eyes friendly. But I'm glad I was able to own and use them.
Were they worth it? They were never versatile enough for me to use as my primary camera; but, I think they are worth it. For many photographers, the Leica is the holy grail of cameras. Everyone who feels that way should own a Leica. You may love it...you may hate it...but it's an itch that is hard to scratch until you actually own one.
I no longer own a Leica. They are not eye glass or old eyes friendly. But I'm glad I was able to own and use them.
Robert Lai
Well-known
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.
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.
DwF
Well-known
Back before digital, there was never any question for me that I preferred rangefinder by far to an SLR. At one point I had a Nikon FM2 and at another an R6. I far preferred everything about the rangefinder.
With mirrorless, and good EVF cameras, I still prefer to have the hybrid window of say and X100 or X Pro 2. The "view" I get actually affects what and how I shoot. This came very clear to me this past week shooting only with my RX1R II that on occasion, I made an exposure in spite of the image that the EVF finder provided me!
Here's what happened- I saw the scene, light wasn't great but I wanted to photograph it anyway. I looked in the finder and the exposure makes it look worse than what I knew would come out just from past experience. So in essence the finder uninspired me to do what I was initially inspired to do. If that Sony wasn't so good in other respects, I'd get rid of it. A "real" finder (rangefinder or hybrid Fuji style) would not have gotten in the way for me.
So in answer "are they worth it", I can't rationalize/afford to spend the money on an M10 until the price comes down, and or I decide to part with my MM, a camera I really love to use for the finder and the files which look different than any from other cameras I've seen. Meanwhile, the X Pro 2 is nice to have and I expect I will be taking it out more.
David
With mirrorless, and good EVF cameras, I still prefer to have the hybrid window of say and X100 or X Pro 2. The "view" I get actually affects what and how I shoot. This came very clear to me this past week shooting only with my RX1R II that on occasion, I made an exposure in spite of the image that the EVF finder provided me!
Here's what happened- I saw the scene, light wasn't great but I wanted to photograph it anyway. I looked in the finder and the exposure makes it look worse than what I knew would come out just from past experience. So in essence the finder uninspired me to do what I was initially inspired to do. If that Sony wasn't so good in other respects, I'd get rid of it. A "real" finder (rangefinder or hybrid Fuji style) would not have gotten in the way for me.
So in answer "are they worth it", I can't rationalize/afford to spend the money on an M10 until the price comes down, and or I decide to part with my MM, a camera I really love to use for the finder and the files which look different than any from other cameras I've seen. Meanwhile, the X Pro 2 is nice to have and I expect I will be taking it out more.
David
MadsJaeger
Member
My Leica gateway drug was an M6TTL, which I still own and shoot extensively. It is amazing (I also shoot Nikon SLRs and different medium format systems). Since then I’ve added an M3, M2 and, recently, an M-P 240. Shooting the digital Leica really isn’t all that different from shooting a film Leica. The output from the 240 is amazing and looks less digital than my other digital cameras. Still, the film Leicas are slicker. In my opinion, what makes Leicas special are the lenses which, although eyewateringly expensive, are nothing short of amazing. I don’t own other lenses (and I have a lot from a range of systems!) which produce similar results. The 35 Lux FLE is the best lens I have ever used, period. Expensive? Yes. But if you can afford them, yes, they’re worth it! And you only live once!
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
I didn't buy a Ferrari because I needed transportation, nor did I buy a Leica because I needed to take photographs.
Disclosure: I didn't buy a Ferrari.
Disclosure: I didn't buy a Ferrari.
Robert Lai
Well-known
Well, a Leica is just slightly more affordable than a Ferrari.
Just slightly....
Just slightly....
froyd
Veteran
The correct coding is automatically applied when you mount the external VF. Whereas shooting using the entire frame of the regular viewfinder could result in vignetting, purple fringing, and lusting for 0.58 magnification.
RichC
Well-known
When I wasn’t serious about photography I used a Leica M8. Nice object, inefficient tool. I now use a Sony A7R II.
The Leica M was once current technology. But that was decades ago, and it was superseded by better cameras well before the advent of digital. The digital Leica M uses a design that was obsolete half a century ago, and its electronic components including the sensor are second rate compared with current Japanese cameras - DXO Mark has it in 39th place for image quality (my Sony A7R II is in 5th place, despite being an older, obsolete model). Not to mention the presence of quirks and faults that simply wouldn’t be tolerated in, say, a Canon camera.
If photography is all about the image - as it is for me - then the camera is simply a tool, and I’d be a fool to use an expensive, second-rate, inefficient tool. Every function of the Leica M is done far better by a digital camera of some kind. And liking your tool is immaterial - great if you do, but a good photographer should be able to use any camera that meets their technical needs.
(My Sony? I think it’s ugly with all the charisma of brick. But it’s the most efficient camera I’ve ever used, with stunning image quality, and that’s all that matters.)
I know plenty of photographers who make their living from photography, including a Magnum photographer. Not one uses a Leica M for professional work.
If you like the Leica M as an object, that’s fine: part of the reason I bought a Leica M8 is because I liked the idea of a well-made camera constructed of quality materials with simple controls harkening back to a past era. But any argument that it performs in any way better than mainstream “serious” Japanese digital cameras is doomed to failure.
When I began to take photography seriously, I sold the Leica M. I needed a camera, not an expensive, nostalgic toy.
The Leica M was once current technology. But that was decades ago, and it was superseded by better cameras well before the advent of digital. The digital Leica M uses a design that was obsolete half a century ago, and its electronic components including the sensor are second rate compared with current Japanese cameras - DXO Mark has it in 39th place for image quality (my Sony A7R II is in 5th place, despite being an older, obsolete model). Not to mention the presence of quirks and faults that simply wouldn’t be tolerated in, say, a Canon camera.
If photography is all about the image - as it is for me - then the camera is simply a tool, and I’d be a fool to use an expensive, second-rate, inefficient tool. Every function of the Leica M is done far better by a digital camera of some kind. And liking your tool is immaterial - great if you do, but a good photographer should be able to use any camera that meets their technical needs.
(My Sony? I think it’s ugly with all the charisma of brick. But it’s the most efficient camera I’ve ever used, with stunning image quality, and that’s all that matters.)
I know plenty of photographers who make their living from photography, including a Magnum photographer. Not one uses a Leica M for professional work.
If you like the Leica M as an object, that’s fine: part of the reason I bought a Leica M8 is because I liked the idea of a well-made camera constructed of quality materials with simple controls harkening back to a past era. But any argument that it performs in any way better than mainstream “serious” Japanese digital cameras is doomed to failure.
When I began to take photography seriously, I sold the Leica M. I needed a camera, not an expensive, nostalgic toy.
sjones
Established
Yes, worth it, as I wouldn’t trade my M2-R and 50mm DR for any other camera setup, irrespective of cost, digital or film.
Rangefinders are perfectly suited for my type of photography, and the simplicity of my M2 offers its own set of efficiencies (amidst the admittedly greater conveniences of digital in general).
Moreover, a camera is not just a ‘tool’ for me personally, as the overall photographic process is something I enjoy, including my camera’s unsurpassed tactile pleasure. I don’t think there is one modern Japanese digital camera that offers a film advance that performs better than does my Leica’s.
Of course, I’m not a professional, so I can indulge in such seemingly frivolous intangibles…nostalgia, by the way, NOT being one of them.
Is the M2 technologically dated…sure. So are pianos, guitars, clay, chisels, oil paints, the human voice, ink pens, black & white film, and other ancient tools that are still, nevertheless, wonderfully productive mediums in terms of aesthetics and creativity. And besides, not everyone just wants to press a couple sliders and menu buttons, so we’re gosh darn glad about choice.
Anyway, I reckon I might be using my already antiquated M2 some twenty years down the road; something that I could not confidently say about any current digital camera.
Rangefinders are perfectly suited for my type of photography, and the simplicity of my M2 offers its own set of efficiencies (amidst the admittedly greater conveniences of digital in general).
Moreover, a camera is not just a ‘tool’ for me personally, as the overall photographic process is something I enjoy, including my camera’s unsurpassed tactile pleasure. I don’t think there is one modern Japanese digital camera that offers a film advance that performs better than does my Leica’s.
Of course, I’m not a professional, so I can indulge in such seemingly frivolous intangibles…nostalgia, by the way, NOT being one of them.
Is the M2 technologically dated…sure. So are pianos, guitars, clay, chisels, oil paints, the human voice, ink pens, black & white film, and other ancient tools that are still, nevertheless, wonderfully productive mediums in terms of aesthetics and creativity. And besides, not everyone just wants to press a couple sliders and menu buttons, so we’re gosh darn glad about choice.
Anyway, I reckon I might be using my already antiquated M2 some twenty years down the road; something that I could not confidently say about any current digital camera.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
What gets me about Leica is that up to the mid 1980s, a basic new Leica M set-up with one body and three new not too exotic useful Leitz lenses were almost within reach for some amateur photographers, price wise at least.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Right you are. Of course, Japanese digital cameras don't have film advances so there is little competition.
agfa100
Well-known
I have used M cameras since 1972 you could afford them and their lenses, today not so much. I still have my lenses and use them on a Ricoh GXR at first and now a A7s. Thank god my eye's still work at 70, I have a number of friends that all used to shoot M cameras with digital they are all moved over to other cameras except for one who has gone to the new CL and autofocus lenses. But we just don't see the digital M's as worth it plus the issue if you need any repairs done. But I still love what I get with my 50 year old Leica glass.
wbill
wbill