Why are they so expensive?>

As I understand it they can’t sell sensors to evyonyopne, that’s why thy’re so expensive

Otherwise, a complete waste

It largely depends on what Leica equipment you are buying- their lenses for m-series & their new SLR system are all hand made in Germany, which will drive up the price, as well as being considered to be some of the best lenses you can buy.. for their consumer digital cameras, they develop them alongside Panasonic, so perhaps a increase in price is down to the name.

Do you take photographs?

It largely depends on what Leica equipment you are buying

This. But…

I bought some Trinovid 10 x 25 binos which in reality are no better (optically) than my Opticron Oasis 10 x 28’s. Leicas were £350 & the Opticrons were £200. (& neither are as as good as my old 10 x 50 Optolyth Alpins)

I have had a few Leica cameras, expensive yes, but the image quality is second to none.

Considering buying the new Leica Q full frame camera. Had a couple of Canon full frame cameras, image quality and functionality is generally better, but if you value image quality to be the most important issue, then dig deep in your wallet.

I had an old M3 and a newer M7 for a while – aside from medium format, by far and away the best photographs I ever took were with those cameras.

Beautiful things too.

Never used their digital cameras – I’ve got Fujifilm X series which is a fraction of the cost but also well designed, properly made and comes with v.reasonably priced fast glass.

Is there any point in XTR, X0, Dura-Ace, Super-Record etc?

Just because you’re not the customer it’s designed for doesn’t mean it’s a waste.

I find that using my M9 is very different to an DSLR or mirrorless camera – slower and more contemplative. Some of my best pictures have been taken with it.

Hasselblad – Any point?
Why are they so expensive?>

As I understand it they can’t sell sensors to evyonyopne anyone, that’s why thy’re they’re so expensive

Otherwise, a complete waste
Same principle applies, and as for sensors, neither do Nikon, their cameras use Seiko sensors, so do you have anything to say about Nikon cameras and the cost?
It must be said, though, that the Leica compact digital cameras are virtually identical to their Panasonic siblings, but are significantly more expensive. I’m on my third LUMIX TZ camera, and I can’t see anything to justify buying a Leica alternative.

Marketing 101. Some people are ready and willing to have paid a premium price just so they have spent more than someone else.

Premium brands exist in every single market sector.

Marketing 101. Some people are ready and willing to have paid a premium price just so they have spent more than someone else.

Premium brands exist in every single market sector.

Leica isnt a traditional premium brand per sae, from about 1940-1980 they were very much a player in the profesional camera market, as the M-series RF cameras were popular among press photographers, photojournalists and the like. Most of the Magnum photographers favoured a Leica (Cartier bresson, et all) due to their compact size, durability & of course, Image quality. Indeed, Leica can almost be credited with inventing the compact camera, with the Leica 1, which was a pet project of a engineer at leica (when they mostly made microscopes & surveying equipment) who wanted a small camera that could use 35mm cine camera film.

Of course there are things Leica didn’t do so well- their film SLRs were mostly made on conjunction with other japanese camera makers, with the M-series remaining their pride & joy, made in small numbers with a price to match. Of course as news photography became increasingly digital, use of film died out, apart from with more traditional long term photohjournalstic projects. They were late into the digital game, with a digital back for one of their SLR cameras, the digital-modul-r for the R8, which of course was expensicve & didn’t sell too many. The digital M-series cameras are very nice, but with the leica price tag to match..

I’m on my third LUMIX TZ camera, and I can’t see anything to justify buying a Leica alternative.

I had a Leica D Lux 4 for a few years. Had better glass than the Panasonic equivalent also came with a full version of Capture One editing software which is superb. If I remember correctly (was a few years ago) the Leica version had more metal components than the Panasonic version too. Made it heavier but felt much better in the hand. YMMV

All in, I thought it was worth the extra expense.

Now I use a Lumix G6, perfectly good for what I want now.

I was in a Leica Store the other day and the new ‘Q’ is stunning.

I used to have an m9, but I sold it and bought a Sony A7rii and a Leica Q. Currently trying to work out how to get rid of the Sony and get another m9.

The Q is fantastic, although the paint is a little fragile.

With all of Leica’s full frame or larger sensor cameras (I don’t anything about their compact cameras so can’t comment) there is only one reason you need to justify the spending that much money on a camera and that is the lenses. The same goes for all of their film cameras.

There are other compelling reasons also, such as imperious build quality. I recently owned a Leica M4 built in 1967 and it was mechanically perfect despite being almost 50 years old.

Also with the M series bodies, you are getting a digial range finder design. There isn’t another camera on the market that is designed this way so if you value the RF experience, and many do, the price is irrelevant.

Everything still goes back to the lenses though. M glass does have a very particular look, it’s even referenced as the ‘Leica Look’.

and as for sensors, neither do Nikon, their cameras use Seiko sensors

No they don’t.

They spec a reasonable phone camera/lens combo 😛

The software is great too.

Digital RF?

That’s different to say Fuji’s X100 series RF’s?

That’s different to say Fuji’s X100 series RF’s?

Yes, in that the Fuji cameras are not range finders they’re digital mirrorless cameras that are styled as range finder cameras.

A range finder focuses using parallax and has a small moveable patch inside the optical view finder window. When the patch perfectly overlaps the viewfinder patch the image is in perfect focus. That’s a key feature of the RF experience because it’s a very precise way of obtaining focus and with practise is extremely quick.

the X series are look-a-likes with decent viewfinders (on some models). But they’re not RF – Konost, a US startup, have been working on a digital rangefinder – manual focus, using Leica lenses

It is well overdue so not sure if it’ll ever happen though…

It is well overdue so not sure if it’ll ever happen though…

There have been a few still born digital RF projects (as well the original Epson digital RF, which was the first of its kind) over the years and more are appearing. There are designs being shown for Contaxt and Besa at the moment.

I think the problem is one of cost and demand. RF focus mechanisms are very expensive to make and ultimately the demand for cameras that use them is extremely limited. Most people who want an RF camera also want it to be a Leica (for many reasons other than it also being an RF) so the appeal for an alternative would have to be based on wanting something cheaper. But if the demand is going to be low anyway (and even lower for a budget RF), that’s just going to make the camera expensive once you’ve priced for likely demand. At that point the alternative RF product becomes pointless.

imagine if a rigid single-speed mountain bike cost twice as much as a mass produced full suspension bike. Wait, they can.

For want of a better analogy that’s what the Leica thing is about, total quality and very manual indeed, no zoom, multi lenses.

I’ve had the last 2 digital m cameras and I also use an SLR. The M is much harder work, but you’re taking more deliberate pictures, you focus selectively, and there’s a feel to the image you get as a result of this plus the glass and chip combination.

I can spot the M shots in lightroom.

If you’re shooting anything moving the M is a handful unless you shoot f8 and at that point it gets a bit like a point and shoot. However at f16 on a tripod is a precision tool capable of photos you find yourself staring at for ages.

However the biggest difference is how it blends in (as Lon as a camera geek doesn’t pipe up)
1. You’re more likely to carry it when you go out, it’s smaller and well balanced
2. It’s unobtrusive when you’re not using it, you don’t have a massive lump round your neck waiting to hit something or someone’s kid.
3. People are much much more at ease when you take their photo with a rangefinder, especially random street stuff, it’s not imposing like a big slr but people also know it’s not a point and shoot.

I had to go away for a week with the family and because we went to the mountains I took the canon due to the elements. Boy did I wish I had the Leica for the few days we spent in the city. You just take more photos, get away with more.

My last Leica had 20k shots on it and I never really went out to shoot, it just went everywhere with me.

I’m not quite at the point that I’d go on a MTb trip with the M in a backpack but I could. It’s heavy though

For me what point and shoot cameras do I can get close with my phone.

Finally, I find the camera a bit embarrassing, people have very strong opinions about them, the people that own them, whether they’re actually really any good. I never bought very expensive cars but I imagine is a bit like that.

Actually it’s a bit like a niche jones singlespeed.

Both what Lexhorton and Geetee1972 say. I’ve progressed through the years from a Zenit E, Prakitika, Cosina, and numerous Canons before finally being able to afford a digital M and lenses. The quality of the build and solidity of the camera is awesome. The lenses are sublime. Never in all my photography have I achieved such clarity and sharpness. To shoot on an M with a wide open lens gives an image that I’ve never achieved with mainstream SLR’s. That’s no criticism of mainstream camera’s and lenses; most are awesome and with the right person behind the lens, very capable. But a Leica range finder though not easy or fast to use, produces an image that looks like no other in the digital world. You only need to go into some photo exhibitions and within seconds can see that Leica ‘look’.
I agree with Lexhorton in that you are less obtrusive. You can take photographs and people either don’t seem to mind or don’t see you.
I used to consider myself a photographer of Landscapes, but since the arrival of the M, I now get as much pleasure from street photography.
Yes, the Leica system is expensive, perhaps out of the reach of many. But many things in life are, we have to make many choices and decisions. Mine was to forgo some other ‘luxuries’ in life, save and buy a camera that I’d dreamt of for decades.

Leica isn’t about luxury but quality. There’s a difference.

and as for sensors, neither do Nikon, their cameras use Seiko sensors

Nikon have their sensors mainly made by Sony (which is not the same as using Sony sensors) as they’re just buying space in a fab. Very similar to Apple, whose chips are made in Samsung fabs. Building a fab is a multi-billiion £ investment, so there are far less fabs than there are Silicon manufactures, who design the silicon and then just buy space in a fab to make it.

List of all Nikon DSLR cameras and their sensor manufacturer/designer

The thing about sensors though is that they don’t make a camera, you’ve got a lot of other software and hardware involved in producing a RAW file so the fact that there are only a few sensor suppliers doesn’t mean that the camera industry is reductionist.

Leica isn’t about luxury but quality. There’s a difference.

Indeed there is, though even as a Leica user myself, there are things I’m not copmfortable about.

The SL range of lenses for example are utterly preposterous. The 50mm SL Summilux is, I kid you not, £4000 and the only thing it does over my 50mm M Summilux (which is still similarly expensive) is offer Autofocus. Actually that’s not quite true, it is also four times the mass and three times the size and it also contain twice the number of lens elements and as a result, I personally think the image quality has changed considerably and it has lost the ‘Leica look’ and replaced it with something that looks terribly over processed.

The other thing I’m not comfortable about is the very worrying lack of talent that the vast majority of Leica shooters seem to display at least as far as the user forums seem to go. I shouldn’t judge based on that sample I suppose but there is something deeply disconcerting about people who spend £9000 on a camera set up to shoot things like this:

Flowers

Leica 35mm Cameras also appeal to collectors. I used to work with a chap who had literally dozens of them, they used to release limited editions and often used to get those. I don’t think most of them ever took a shot in anger. But he also had WWII stuff as well.

The cameras are interesting in their own right as the story of the “Leica” runs parallel with photography itself.

Leica 35mm Cameras also appeal to collectors. I used to work with a chap who had literally dozens of them,

I had a boss once who had dozens of them….

I had a boss once who had dozens of them….

The collectors items are bought by people with lots of money and little imagination. They are stupidly expensive, even by Leica standards and there is no difference to the stock units other than the prettifying done to them and the even fancier box they come in. It is barmy; as daft as Hasselblad taking a £900 Sony NEX-7, sticking some fancy wood on it and a few CNC knurled knobs and then, quite literally, asking someone to pay £5,500k for it.

You have to be a particular kind of stupid to do that.

The Leica collectibles do tend to hold their value but they aren’t exactly what you would call ‘investment grade’ items. Really the rationale is something like ‘hey, the Leica M240 isn’t expensive enough for me (at £9000 for a body and two lenses) so please can you build one out of titanium for me and then double the price’.

The phrase ‘the Leica look’ puts me off a bit. Are there adaptors available to use Leica lenses on other bodies? Currently using a Minolta 50mm MF on my Samsung NX300, its a completely different camera.

The phrase ‘the Leica look’ puts me off a bit.

Not sure why it would? It’s only a good thing, though probably less relevant now than when it was first coined. It relates to the ‘3-D look’ that certain lenses give; it can be seen in an image where the subject that is in focus really stands out from the background, as if they have been cut out and superimposed onto another scene.

Some people refer to this as ‘micro contrast’, others argue that it’s the result of low element count lenses. I’m not sure whether either of those two things are relevant or account for the differences or not. But the difference in general contrast, between the foreground contrast and the background contrast is clear to see and is the mark of a great lens and also the ‘Leica look’. This is a good example:

[url=https://flic.kr/p/TU4je5]Tattoo Guy[/url] by Greg Turner, on Flickr

It’s easy to confuse this 3-D look (also referred to as ‘pop’) with the bluring of the background. That helps but it’s not the point being referred to; it’s the difference in contrast between foreground and background; the way that the blacks look blacker for the subject in focus, and greyer or more washed out elsewhere that gives that look.

Are there adaptors available to use Leica lenses on other bodies?

There are, lots of them. I had a quick look for an adapter to mount M lenses onto the NX bodies but couldn’t find one though so suspect that one might be harder to find but they will exist.

I would never suggest buying an M lens just to mount onto that camera though unless you were planning on subsequently buying a Leica. It’s a very expensive way to upgrade and you’re only using about two thirds of the image circle that the lens projects. If you already had M glass then it’s a great way to get more from both though.

^ is that similar to Fuji lens’ rendering?

^ is that similar to Fuji lens’ rendering?

It might be; I guess it’s what every lens manufacturer is aiming for and I have no doubt that Fujifilm achieve that with their own lenses across all their platforms, APS-C and Medium Format, but I don’t think the image you’ve posted is a good example. The contrast looks the same throughout the whole image; the blacks in the background look very black for example.

But I don’t think that matters because I like the image and it’s a great portrait given the very strong lighting conditions.

This is another good example of what I mean. This was actually taken on with a Zeiss lens mounted onto a medium format film camera (a Hasselblad 501). The lens was stopped down to something like f/8 I think so there’s quite a bit of DoF but the subject still pops in the image.

[url=https://flic.kr/p/T2DoYH]Ms Storm[/url] by Greg Turner, on Flickr

that greg turner seems to like his tat’s 🙂

The Fuji photo has lots of fill flash to compensate for the sun being slightly behind the subject. This gives the photo the pop here.

that greg turner seems to like his tat’s

[url=https://flic.kr/p/TeYLPd]Adam – On the Beach[/url] by Greg Turner, on Flickr

[url=https://flic.kr/p/Sogtun]Philip[/url] by Greg Turner, on Flickr

[url=https://flic.kr/p/LWWiWa]You're Gonna' Hear me Road[/url] by Greg Turner, on Flickr

I always think it’s a strong expression of personal identity and that’s something I’m very interested in.

Leica used to be a high quality professionals brand now they are jus fashion accessories for posers.

grum – Member
Leica used to be a high quality professionals brand now they are jus fashion accessories for posers.

of all the flavours, you choose to be salty

Sorry for not buying into your poser niche.

Leica has combined with luxury fashion house Hermès to create the M9-P Edition Hermès. The camera is coated in ocre-colored calfskin leather and features a matching shoulder strap. The camera also features a redesigned, smoother top-plate and control points, designed by the automotive designer, Walter de’Silva, previously responsible for the M9 Titanium. Only 300 of the cameras will be made. A yet more exclusive series of 100 ‘Edition Hermès – Série Limitée Jean-Louis Dumas’ kits will also be sold, in honor of the former president of Hermès. These kits will include a 28mm f/2, 50mm f/0.95 and 90mm f/2 lens, and a exclusive Hermès camera bag. The limited editions will cost $25,000 and $50,000 respectively.

Clearly all about the image quality and usability.

Leica used to be a high quality professionals brand now they are jus fashion accessories for posers.

Grum, out of interest, why are all the topics you started that are more than one year old all closed?

Sorry for not buying into your poser niche.

I said earlier that you have to be a particular kind of stupid to buy a limited edition set for £40,000 that would otherwise cost £18,000. But that is just one line in their range and the standard versions of the bodies and lenses, while still expensive, do perform to a very high standard that does, to some degree, justify the price.

But you have a point to some degree. There are a lot of people using Leicas that have far more money than talent or even a desire to develop talent.

I have Canon gear that has worked well for me for a long time and for much of what I have shot for a living it did it well enough to keep me in work. If I did portraiture or a lot of studio or wedding work both Leica and Hass would be on my list. But it would have to be a better paying segment of the industry. For my ability I can’t drawin the business capable of justifying that outlay.

I is sad.