Flash Gordon

Most of the cameras discussed on this forum are Nikon, Canon, Sony and others. I don’t recall any mention of the Leica brand. The cost of Leica’s seem to be comparable to the heigher end Nikon, Canon, Sony and others. I’m curious. Do any of the UHH members have and/or use the Leica brand? If so, why or why not. Is it the cost compared with other brands? Is it features compared with other brands? What say the group?
Flash Gordon
Punta Gorda, FL

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

The Leica's are more of nostalgia. A rangefinder camera with a great lens. You compare my RX100 4
with its features as a very small well made camera with the low end Leica's and Sony wins.
I would like their monochrome B&W camera but it is 7k. They are making a couple of $1200 cameras
made in China not Germany.The Leica's have or had better tonality and 3D Pop. In some cases they
are the Panasonic Lumixs rebranded on their lower end.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

The ones I see are many times the cost of the other top models from competitors. And they appear to have less features. They seem to me to be mostly a status symbol.

A Timex shows the same time as a Rolex.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

‘Cause cellphones are so much cheaper. 😃

gsnelson Loc: Western Maryland

I have a Leica M240, a chunky digital body I paid about $4,000 for used and some very old Leica lenses.
My Leica gets very little use, because my Sony A7Rii is so much easier to use. Even my Nikon D850 is easier to get predictable pictures from. Leica is a good camera, but you have to work a bit at the beginning on focus and exposure. I intend to do that some day...soon....

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

If you are considering a vintage Leica rangefinder camera and lenses such as the pre-1975 3G, M2, M3, M4 and M5s, etc., they are worth the money because of their super high quality and the fact that they have a long track record of appreciation at a rate that has consistently beaten inflation for over 50-years. I regret to this day that I sold my M3 in 1965.

rocar7 Loc: Alton, England

But not with the same style!

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Not much anyway.

Leica cameras are the type where few folks have used them but everyone has an opinion on them. :(




It depends.

The cost of a Leica film camera is fairly reasonable considering how well it's built.

The cost of Leica digitals is out of sight as far as I'm concerned.

As I said, you either love them or hate them. They do what they do and they do it better than any other camera so if that's what you want...then that's the camera you buy...if not, you buy a DSLR or mirrorless or something.

I've owned a Leica M6 with several nice Leica lenses and ended up selling the whole shebang for the same price I bought it all for.

Why?

I was always thinking about the high priced gear that was hanging around my neck instead of thinking about getting images.

What if I drop it?

What if I bang it into something and the rangefinder gets out of alignment and I don't know it?

etc.


I ended up falling in love with Olympus Trip 35's and a Nikon FE2 and that's all I need. You can buy them for less than $150.00 each and they are bullet proof.

I love rangefinders and fixed focus (zone focus) cameras like the Leica and Trips...they allow me to just shoot instead of fiddle.

And don't get me started on the amount of menu choices in digi cams! :)

Editorial note: If you like digi-cams...more power to you...use what you like, I'm not here to defend film vs digi.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I often use a Leica IIIf. It's a great "street photography" camera.
--Bob

DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina

I have, and regularly use, a Leica V-Lux 4, which probably would be called a bridge camera. It has a fixed lens, in ff speak, reaches from abt 28mm to abt 720mm. Many features I like, including panos, hdr, video (which I don't use), with acceptable IQ. It replaced a model 3, which went belly up on auto focus, so acquired this one used. It is small, light weight, and is just a very nice little member of my stable. It has been on the mkt for a few yrs, so don't know what the successor model might be.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

(And my 30+ year old Timex is still running.)

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

They aren't. Quit saying that.

The only people who say this are folks who haven't or don't shoot one.

A leica is what it is...it's that simple.

You like what it does in the way that it does it?

Then buy it.

If not...then buy what you like.

Leica owners are no different than Canon or Nikon owners...they buy what camera they like and they use it.

It's that simple.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Gee, if more folks would read this post first it would cut way down on the " What should I buy " questions. There are more than enough reviews out there that folks should know what appeals to THEM not someone ELSE. OK, no more ranting....have a great day. BOB

Largobob

There are many fine manufacturers of cameras and optical equipment. Leica is one. IMHO, those that have lasted over time, make credible equipment that can produce outstanding images. Some manufactures produce fine equipment, that is WAY OVER PRICED. I think Hasselblad and Leica may be in that category.

BebuLamar

I never own a Leica although I do check them out at the stores. I like them very much for many reasons but I don't want to buy them. The reasons that I like?
1. They are very good looking cameras.
2. I don't think they are tough but are very well built.
4. I actually like the fact that they have few features except
The reasons that I don't like
1. I don't want a rangefinder nor mirrorless.
2. The cameras are affordable to me but the lenses are way too expensive for me.