GAS496 Loc: Arizona

I have a Leica M7. It is their latest technology for a 35mm film camera. I bought it because I love to own finely made handcrafted cameras. (The camera I use for most of my photography is a handmade Ebony 8x10 view camera.). It takes one person almost one week to sit at his Leica bench and build an M7. In todays world of mass production there is something to be said about old world craftsmanship. I also own a beautiful Canon F1 35mm. It is fun to shoot with too but I “feel” a deeper more artistic way when looking at things through the Leica. Can’t really put other words to it than that nor a price tag.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

BobL625usa

You buy the Leica body so that you have a camera that will take or hold the Leica glass. For me it’s all about the images taken with Leica lenses. There’s something about the images, when you compare the same subject taken with non Leica lenses. Some will say it’s the emperor’s new clothes syndrome, to justify the expense of the lenses. But I disagree. I have compared images taken with my Leica lenses and my Canon L lenses and I see a quality difference, in favor of Leica. Photographers talk about the Bokeh of a lens. Well there is a similar something, viewing an image recorded with Leica glass.

berchman Loc: South Central PA

A few years ago I took a weekend Leica street photography course in NYC which offered to loan you whichever Leica body and lens you wanted. My reason for taking the course was to find out whether or not I still disliked rangefinder cameras. When I first got interested in photography my purchase of a Pentax H1a was very satisfying because now I could compose in the viewfinder which showed me more or less precisely what the final shot would look like.

One of the Leicas offered in the course was the Monochrome. I asked for that plus a fast Sumichron lens. The camera and lens cost $12,000. I prayed that I would not be robbed. I read afterwards that the Leica takes getting used to (my current camera at the time was a Nikon D700), but I really disliked using that camera. I will say this, though. The technical quality of the black and white photos I took was fantastic. Terrific range of tones, velvety blacks. The reason is that each shot was recording *all* of the light information hitting the sensor while in a conventional camera whatever information came to the sensor was dependent on the red, green, blue emitted by the scene.

The next day we were again offered our choice of Leicas and I turned down the Leica to use my Nikon. You should have seen the outrage and disgust of a few of the course participants! The first day we were taken to Bryant Park for our street photos; the second day we went to Central Park. Many of the people in the course just wanted to talk about technical aspects of the camera and lenses and wanted to know what Leica's future plans were. They evinced little or no interest in discussing the street photos we had taken.

It is possible, of course, that skillful post processing would produce black and white photos essentially indistinguishable from those coming from the Leica Monochrome. Even though I love black and white, nothing would persuade me to use a Leica, given my experience with the handling of the camera. My memory isn't good enough to go into detail about what I disliked, although I do remember that the LCD screen was essentially useless for chimping.

karno Loc: Chico ,California

Leica are a pain for many reasons but my m240 files still have a quality that my D850 does not.
It is difficult to for me to explain but it is a snappy realism that I have not seen in other cameras

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

I tried on numerous occasions the Leica Rangefinders. I never liked their ergonomics. I much prefer the ease and feel of many of the cheaper Japanese rangefinders.

KK

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Yes, the Leica Monochrom has the advantage over other 24 MP cameras in not being handicapped by a Bayer array. It performs like a color camera with a much higher pixel count, some say as well as a 48 MP sensor camera. But don't stop with that comparison.

A rangefinder camera - digital or film - is a specialized tool that might not appeal to most SLR users. You don't focus through the lens, the range of useful focal lengths is between about 18 mm and 135 mm (the size of the scene does not change with the focal length), no zooms and the lenses are manual focus. Loading film in a Leica M is a royal pain compared to other film cameras and there was no Auto setting for exposure until the M7. You probably would not want to use it for many kinds of photography for which an SLR/DSLR is better suited.

Nevertheless, I have an M6 and five lenses that I also use with my Sony A7 II and a Zeiss Icon (also a rangefinder but with Auto exposure like the M7). All three cameras with the lens attached are dwarfed by the bulk of my SLR or DSLRs. That is another significant advantage. They are easy to carry around all day.

BJW

REPLY

LEICA glass is the best I’ve ever used only because it gives me the result I personally seek in my street photography, portraiture, low light and close up images.

I also use Leica glass with my Lumix body for sililarly excellent results at a lower overall cost.

But I love the feel and performance of my Leica Q, —combining both Leica body and glass, but I wouldn’t use it for shooting sports, such as ice hockey—where it can’t hold a candle to my Nikon D500. It’s simply not intended for that genre of photography.

I think the difference is comparable to driving a Mercedes and a Lexus. Both German and Japanese technology are excellent. But they are still different.

One notable difference is the history of Leica Camera which has nothing to do with image quality, but still makes me feel “warm and fuzzy” and good about using their splendid photographic instruments. And for the moral compass of that camera company, I would gratefully spend the extra money. You can read about why here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Freedom_Train

Bravo Leica!!!

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

I have owned a number of Leica’s, a couple of M3’s and an M2, I wish I still owned. Presently I own an M6 ttl and an M10. I can say I have never had a problem with any of them. I don’t think your statement of, service done only in Germany, is true. There are repair centers in America to my knowledge.

To me their simplicity of design does go along with more manual features. I personally think simplicity of design and sophisticated features can go hand in hand. There is no autofocus as on other cameras these days. I don’t feel I am missing anything. But these cameras are meant for a small group of people who enjoy the craftsmanship of a Leica. I do love the shutter sound. But I hated the shutter sound of the M9. It was more of an electronic buzz sound rather than a click.

Leica does build a monochrome camera but I have no interest in it. That is what my M6 is for.

Leica lenses are known for sharpness but also for a specific color range they achieve. I don’t look at Lens sharpness charts and never have for Leica lenses I own. They are certainly sharp enough for me. Will they better the sharpness of your CaNiSon lenses? I have no idea.

Presently I have three Leica M lenses, all purchased used; 28mm f2.8 Elmarit, 35mm f1.4 Summilux and a 50mm f2 Summicron. All take great photos when I do my part. At some point I still want/need a 90mm f2 Summicron. It is worth noting that the Leica lenses are much smaller than DSLR lenses. I can easily fit my three lenses and two bodies in a small camera bag, batteries and charger (for the M10) too for those trips when I want to carry light but give up nothing in quality of photos.

Just like the older manual Hasselblads, Rollie TLR’s Bronica’s and so on, these are not electronic whiz bang cameras (M10 excluded). But they do take great photos when the user does his/her part. No, they are not for everyone and yes, they can be pricey. But I rationalize nothing in my love of using them. They are what they are, a well designed camera system that is still going strong.

Dennis

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

That is a great looking set up. I also appreciate your positive comments regarding Leica.

Dennis

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Apparently not everyone shares your viewpoint. And that is OK.

Dennis

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

My Leica lasted 61 years before I had to have any maintenance done. That was because of the shutter literally falling apart. Another friend of mine is having one his serviced. That lasted 59 years before his needed maintenance. I should think that Leica is aware of their reputation and strive to maintain that reputation.
--Bob

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

The post WWII Leicas in the 50's, 60's and 70's were worth the money because their optics were truly superior to anything else in the 35mm marketplace. That was not only because of their quality build, but also because of Leica's superior optics technology at the time. Leica photographs were noticeably sharper than the competition because Leica's color correction was far superior to any other optics available.

In the later part of the 70's moving forward, manufactures started to digitally design their optics and as that design method improved, other manufactures were able to narrow the optical quality gap. Today, everyone uses computer design for optics and the sharpness of top end lens lines on average are comparable for Nikon and Canon. Leica may or may not arguably still have an edge, but it is negligible and it is certainly not like the old days where you could put a photo shot with a Leica next to one shot with any other brand side by side in a blind test and instantly know which one was shot with a Leica. I would argue that Leica is no longer worth the price unless you have money to burn.

Arubalou

Arubalou