fetzler Loc: North West PA

A Leica SL2 Mirrorless Camera with 24-70mm f/2.8 Lens is $9300. Although I perfer the Hasselblad H6D-100c Medium Format DSLR Camera (body only) at $33,000.

I think I just discovered the reason there are not hugh masses of Leica unsers.

Years ago I had a Leica M3 (used) it indeed was great for many things and Leica lenses are excellent.

Incidently, I have a couple of Panasonic -Leica lenses for my Olympus cameras.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Among the various cameras I use, a Leica IIIf is one of them.
--Bob

MrPhotog

Nah. It is like Playboy. I say I just read the stories, but actually I am secretly looking at the pictures, too. 😎

alexol

Ah yes, that famous religious adherence to perfect sharpness required to a great photo...

Somehow, I don't see many of the sharp-photo adherents on the site enjoying the same reverence as Cartier-Bresson a few years from now.

Maybe we should spend more effort on what makes a photo great and worry less about simple technicalities.

I'd bet a very large portion of people on this site would have a hard time taking a sharp photo without modern auto-focus AND composing well, AND mastering all the other aspects of creating an image simultaneously.

We have entirely too many ideally-sharp, perfectly processed yet worthless images.

tradio Loc: Oxford, Ohio

I want one of those SL2's........

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

I don't know I will be a Leica user/collector, it may be never, but I am always a Leica "Dreamer" who dreams to have a Leica one day! The price is the main road block to me! Almost $3000 on my Nikon was the max. that I can afford, but I will continue to dream, hopefully I will reach my goal one day before my time is up. Hay! there is nothing wrong to live my life with a dream and wish that will get me going everyday!

MrPhotog

For all the millions of Nikons, Canons, and other brands manufactured each year, there are a few thousand Leica cameras made. Leicas are way less than 1% of the camera market. However, the rangefinder models keep working for decades, so the market has plenty of used ones available.

There are also a lot of old lenses around. Some are sharper than others, and some can get knocked around. The old lenses were fantastic 50 years ago. In some cases they still are.

I regularly used 4 M-series Leicas when I was a photojournalist and wedding photographer. I started with a new M-4 and used 35 mm F/2 lens in December 1972. The body was $450 and the lens was $160.

Right now both are in Germany for a 50 year tune up, which will cost me a lot more than they did, new. But I expect to get at least another 25 years service from them. It depends on how long I live, not how long they’ll work. For 50 years service, that camera cost me $9 a year. Since I could sell it used, before the tune-up, for about $1000, I actually could have been paid for buying it. The lens went up in value by a greater rate. So, no, Leicas are not particularly expensive cameras to own.

At one time I had two M3 cameras which I bought used for a couple hundred dollars each. I traded them in on a new $700 M4-2 around 1980, and got more on trade in than I had paid for them. When I shoot 35 mm film that is the one I am using (mostly) now. For the rare occasion I need an SLR I use a visoflex adapter, or a Nikon FM2 with the 55 mm micro nikkor. Years ago I picked up a couple IIIf bodies with lenses for $50, kept the most beat-up one as a daily carry, as it fit in a pocket with the lens collapsed.
That one had shutter fabric problems. At 70 years of age the rubberized shutter curtains were falling apart and had light leaks. I got that fixed recently—took a while to find someone to do the repairs—and that one is back in use.

When I shoot larger format it is 2-1/4 square in a Rolleiflex. The 3.5 planar on it was sharper than the similar designed 2.8 planar on a Hasselblad I owned, and the camera handled faster than the Hasselblad, so I sold the ‘blad for a view camera, which I haven’t used since I moved from news and PR photography to news design, and shut down my darkroom. I’ll get back to large format through a rental darkroom this summer.

Last year I bought a Sony mirrorless to use with the Leica optics. It also takes the Nikon micro nikkor and Nikon’s bellows. Eventually it will be relegated to a copy stand and used for digitizing my library of negatives. I had over 100,000 negatives in 1982 and have many more now. Do I see a difference between the bottom line Sony zoom lens that I got with the camera and the Leica lenses? Oh yes!

I’m on a waiting list at B&H for the new M-11 Leica. When that arrives the Sony will probably be used just for copying, and I’ll go back to carrying a rangefinder.

Unless I get into video. 😎

srt101fan

Would he have wanted his photos to be tack sharp? Could you agree that tack sharpness can actually degrade some photographs?

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I've mentioned that I have several friends at school who are art teachers. A couple of them are accomplished photographers, one is a really fine painter, watercolorist, and illustrator. None of them has ever commented on "sharpness" (or even focus) when I have shown them a photograph. Their interests are always composition, color, and (usually) story.

What's interesting is that they have different preferences around color. Some prefer somewhat muted colors. One, in particular, prefers saturated colors, as do I. I have to be careful not to give too much favor on other characteristics to the one who agrees with me about color.

I think that a preoccupation with sharpness (and perhaps some other characteristics) is just a manifestation of technicians hoping to someday be artists.

srt101fan

"Back in the day, sharpness was not considered to be the holy grail that it is today. Composition and subject matter were what mattered..."

Some times I long for those good old days...

alexol

Nailed it! Perfectly phrased, thank you.

srt101fan

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

I have collected and used numerous Leica rangefinder cameras although my first Leica camera was the old Leicaflex with a Summicron f2, one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used. At the moment I have no Leica cameras. My last was an M10. I cannot say I got photos from the Leica cameras that were far better than any photos from a number of other cameras I have owned and used BUT and this is important to me, just using the Leica rangefinder camera is a pleasure to me. With the exception of the M9 shutter button I enjoy the shutter click, the ease of use, the lightweight yet solidness of the camera itself.

Dennis

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

I am a Leica collector. I just like looking at the lenses.

alexol

Interesting how Leicas are delightful objects in and of themselves, a joy to use in (almost) all aspects, a pleasure to simply hold, and taking a picture - any picture - is an individual experience, a moment to be savored.

With the possible exception of modern Fujis, all others seem to be appliances with no emotional involvement.

From a technical perspective, they are exceptionally good, capable of impressive achievements - but so is my washing machine (thankfully).

In my mind, photography is either for simple records or art. And art is supposed to be about emotion, how you feel.

You have to wonder how many people would stand in front of a Rembrandt and agonize over whether he used a 1/4" or 1/2" brush.