dragonfist Loc: Stafford, N.Y.

My thoughts are this. If you can afford the Leica without breaking the budget and you really want it then go for it. You are as far as anyone knows only coming up this road once. If the golden ring is within your reach grab it. Don't settle for something less only to regret it later on.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

The question is do you want to use a range finder camera. They create a more intimate shooting millieu. You really do not shoot BIF. You shoot people, scenes, and still life with a Leica. You shoot in combat with one because they are indestructible and silent.

The last part of the equation if I were considering buying one would be the technical aspects of the lens and sensor.

They are great cameras but very expensive.

Lastly, they really hold their value.

Good luck.

plewislambert

I have a Leica M9 and several lenses, not all Leitz. The results in colour are good, sharp up to pixillation-level if I haven't shaken the camera. It can also give good monochrome results. Why buy a Monochrom?
Philip

wilikioti Loc: Deep South, USA

I've never understood why anybody would buy a black and white camera only when they can buy one that does color and black and white. Seems like a big, BIG waste of money to me.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

Personally, I am considering a new Leica M 24 MP. Since I shoot RAW, I see no reason in investing in a camera limited to B&W. And the pocket burn will be significant, although travel will be much easier.

However, these cameras are no physical lightweights like the small Nikons. These are the tanks of small cameras with considerable heft.

HTH

Shutter Bugger

Cool as a cucumber Festus; sophistication takes
different forms...

however you
still have to be in the right place at the right time.
Still have to know how to use light.
Still have to be able to manage the "subject".
Still have to understand composition...

You may be able to add to that list?

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

Without getting into the Leica part of this because I only know Leica from afar as being legendary, I'd like to comment on the, "As I know, all these brands, be it Leica, Hasselblad, Nikon, Canon and so on, have compromised on the image quality when compared to their analog predecessors." which, in my opinion and experience, is untrue.

The camera companies have not compromised on image quality - the digital format was initially the weak point because it didn't have the latitude and dynamic range of film. Resolution was not up to par. Electronics was not up to par. Sensors were not up to par. All the companies are striving with enormous investments in research and development to outdo each other and make major advances every year - and they accomplish it.

I've been using digital cameras since the first Sony Mavica in 1998 and the dramatic difference between today's digitals versus the original is almost overwhelming. As we move forward into new sensor materials, 50MP resolution, sensors larger than full-frame, better quality single-chip CPUs doing everything in a camera body, etc. you're going to eventually see digital FAR surpass anything film was ever capable of and for a fraction of the price. The highest cost part of a camera system will be the lenses.

Lens glass has also not been compromised. Lenses from the film era are many times compatible with digital bodies. Leica and Zeiss glass are available as well as the same high quality glass that was always available from Nikon, Canon, and Konica/Minolta.

I currently have a 16MP Sony with Konica/Minolta lens technology, a Minolta lens from the film era, and an additional Sigma lens. I can guarantee you that my current system provides better image quality than my Nikon F3HP and Nikon FM cameras with Nikkor lenses did until I jumped ship into digital - even though my current Sony is a crop sensor and the Nikons were full frame 35mm. So, in my view, your statement is incorrect.

I am not even using 24MP or full frame yet. For me the digital format has now far surpassed anything my 35mm film cameras were capable of. The Nikon F3HP was the top of the line until the F4 was introduced, which wasn't much different than the F3. I am not including medium or large format film cameras in this conversation because that's a whole different story.

Add in-camera dynamic range optimization, HDR both in-camera and in post editing, optional excellent post-editing software with awesome plug-ins that specialize even further, and I cannot in any way agree that today's digital cameras are a compromise compared to film 35mm cameras from those same companies.

RaydancePhoto

The reason I would NOT buy a Leica, Hasselblad is... I can't imagine that a $7000 camera + $7000 lens would produce images 7 to 14 times better than a $1000 camera. I would bet if you took the same image with a Nikon D300 with a quality lens and a $14,000 Leica, and then had 20 people view both images, no one would see the difference.

So if a person wants to buy a Leica, Hasselblad, just for prestige, to be able to say, "Look what I have" then fine, go for it. To me it just means that person has more money than sense. Like buying a BMW just to impress your neighbor.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Of course the quality difference is not proportional, but there is clearly a difference.

You can also get a meal at Burger King but you will enjoy it more at a better restaurant, even if you have to pay ten times as much.

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

Well, unlike Zeiss or Canon, Nikon lenses (at the stills photo end of things,) at least have one feature which elevates Nikon past Canon and Zeiss: lens to lens color matching.

Where the best Zeiss lenses shine is in their sharpness, color contrast, and bokeh. Limitations in digital sensors, particularly on DSLRs, brings a leveling to the field. Most camera sensors are simply off the shelf generic sensors not made or even supervised by camera companies, except Arri. The world of machine vision is the one to thank for much of modern chip development.

Now, a way back example: when shooting special effects for Star Wars (the first one) they had their choice of any lens system on the planet, and, only due to color matching, chose Nikon over all others. Today, only Zeiss' cinema lenses, which start, luckily, cheap these days at around $4K, have all the pro features. However, for stills, even the consumer Zeiss lenses are quite good.

That said, I owned Leica M-series film cameras, which I sold a while back, and continue with Nikon, Hasselblad, and Sinar systems.

A few years ago I shot the top Canon digital and, apart from its plastic feel, typical of Canon, I found its tweaked version of the RAW codec banded on gradients. The amazing lack of knowledge in the PPA ("Professional" Photographers of America) forced me to quit that organization once they published a contest winning photo complete with Canon digital banding. Not knowing about banding or how to fix it is an inexcusable sin. Nikon DSLRs, as yet have not banded on me in RAW.

There are weird visual artifacts on DSLR video though, pretty much across the board due to the limited color space used.

So what, then, in today's market, does Leica have a place? I think, in going full retro, back to film, it does. You just need a good scanner for the digital lab, at the cheap end, the Epson Perfection V750-M Pro. The problem is, the choice in black and white films is growing very limited, as is color transparency film. Color neg is not so much an option for the pro. 35mm is a particularly choosey analog beast.

Of course, for the black and white, you must set up a little lab for yourself. A water bath and ice cubes can be quite effective. Get a good thermometer. Getting pristine negatives is best in a shower stall, where you run the hot water until you get steam in the room, kill the water, hang the film BEFORE the wetting agent with a weighted clip at the bottom, and POUR the wetting agent down each side of the film - NO SQUEEGEE - then leave the room and shut the door. The steamy room kills airborne dust quite well. Do not enter that bath (hope you have two!) for about 6-8 hours. When you go to get the film, it will be as pristine and straight as any lab can do.

Now, this does not cover chemistry, dilutions, and agitation techniques, but I have rambled on enough.

plewislambert

Is a scanned film image able to withstand enlargement as much as one from a comparable digital camera?
My D&P shop 18mb tiffs off an M4-P are not as sharp as the images (same lenses) from an M9.
Maybe a higher grade D&P process would make a difference.
Philip

natron

The other question is, (and this could be your mother speaking)…is your IRA fully funded?

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

Ah, but the new Leice M is a 24 MP sensor. However, you DO have to know what your are doing without Auto modes. I see it as an easier to transport, physically smaller, if not much lighter, travel camera. Saying that, it is $$$$$$.

rrforster12 Loc: Leesburg Florida

I have always been a Leica fan and although I have owned many of the brands available in film and digital, there just does not seem to be a substitute for the Leica's resolution. I still use a Leica IIIf with Summicron f2 lens for film but have gone to the panasonic Lumix series for digital due to cost considerations. They are fitted with leica lens's and are capable of producing pictures quite worthy of the Leica brand.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

It would. An 18MP tiff is pretty small for a full-frame 35mm negative. I get jpegs that are much bigger using a Coolscan 9000.