Leica, what's all the fuss about?

[usayit]

I DO get your point, but your analogy isn't making such a good case.

The difference between a Toyota and a Ferarri is also about 500hp (depending on which models you're comparing) and probably at least $200,000, if not considerably more (depending on which models you're comparing). There's a lot of other differences, too.

You missed my analogy.

* 500hp is to the Ferrari what "mechanical work of art" is to Leica.
* Italian engineering is to Ferrari what German Engineering is to Leica.
* Surviving Fascists is to Ferrari what Surviving Nazi is to Leitz Camera
* Enzo Ferrari is to Ferrari what Barnack is to Leitz Camera.
* The perfect race car is to Ferrari what "Practical 35mm camera" is to Leitz Camera.
* Ferrari never intended to make roadcars. Neither did Leitz until Mr. Barnack made his prototype.
* Typical Ferrari can cost 10x the cost of a typical car. The typical Leica (MP $4k, M8 $5k) can be 10x the cost of a typical camera.
* Ferrari cars are a very collectable. Leica cameras are also very collectable (Some rare ones going for more than $10k. A one of a kind prototype M3 priced at over $75k)
* Ferrari has a heritage of well accomplished drivers. Leica has a heritage of well accomplished photographers (winogrand, robert capa)

You see??. Ferrari is a perfect analogy... Heritage is part of it.


The biggest difference between Ferrari and Leica (in my opinion). Leica produced the perfect M in 1954... the M3. They have been chasing that camera each and every year since (the closest being the MP). Ferrari continues to chase the perfection which keeps them on their best.

 

[Alex_B]

what DOES make a rangefinder desirable (other than nostalgia)?

Not having the mirror.

The mirror causes nothing but trouble ...

- camera shake for medium shutter speeds if you use a tele lens (ok, there is mirror-lock up, but then an SLR becomes a bit inconvenient)

- noise which disturbs animals

- the camera gets rather large and bulky and heavy

- the mirror does cause trouble for ultrawide lenses. the straight forward design does not work anymore, since for short focal lengths the glass would be so close to the medium (film/sensor) that it would collide with the mirror. Therefore you need retrofocus lenses. not sure if this is a real disavantage though, and if rangefinder lenses might not also be of the retrofocus type today. but it is a potential difference.

 

[sothoth]

You missed my analogy.

Certainly you've made your point about Leica having a rich history similar to Ferarri. But that doesn't make me want to buy a Leica or think it's more fun to use than other semi-compact film or digital cameras.

A ferarri is more fun than a toyota because it handles better, has 5x the horsepower, and is beautifully crafted. What makes the Leica more fun, which is what I was originally wondering? A rich history doesn't make me like driving a ferarri, or think it's more fun, the fact that it's one of the best engineered sportscars in the world would make me want to drive one. So... why Leica? Why not another compact rangefinder?

(side note: I don't think I'll even have enough money to drive a ferarri and that's fine by me)

Alex_B's comments about the design are reasonable and are fair points about why you'd want to do street shooting with a small camera (non SLR) that's compact and has good image quality.

 

[usayit]

A ferarri is more fun than a toyota because it handles better, has 5x the horsepower, and is beautifully crafted. What makes the Leica more fun, which is what I was originally wondering?

How do you know driving a ferrari is more fun? One would say the Leica rangefinder handles better and is also beautifully crafted.

I've been in a tight AutoX with a turbo 911.... I LOVED the car but hated it that day. Too much car... in all aspects for that track. It was too easy to overdrive the vehicle. An original minicooper, miata, mr2, or such was MUCH more enjoyable that day. Open track! hell yah.. turbo 911 BUT how many times does someone in NNJ actually get to open a car like that up? Remember the ol'sayin? "It is more fun to drive a slower car fast than a fast car slow"

Shooting with a Leica is more enjoyable (to me) than shooting with an SLR (all the reasons already mentioned above). BUT... as I said... it doesn't automatically make better photographs. In some cases, the SLR is the only way. A Leica rangefinder's base length is too short to accurately focus past a 135mm lens. A Leica rangefinder is not the best tool for Macro. A leica rangefinder has no zooms.

All the reasons explained by previous posters are good reasons why there is a budding niche market for rangefinders. I would add that there is something (I"m going to borrow an automotive term here) "GrassRoots" about shooting with a Leica.... Simplicity in a beautifully crafted camera.



Making you want something (leica or ferrari) is internalized. My wife could care less about either no matter how much I rant and rave about them... she just will never understand (she is not a car nut). If you don't want it because of personal tastes, it will be difficult to have a full understanding. I think people are just plain nuts to spend $$$$ on a Rolex or something similar to that caliber.... but I'll never understand because I don't even own a watch... ( I lied.. I have a swatch somewhere.)

 

[shorty6049]

i'm kinda with sothoth on this... I just dont see the value in a camera that expensive that i couldnt get in say, an old used minolta 35mm body or something (for film at least). I feel like the big camera companies (canon, nikon, pentax, and sure, even sony) have only IMPROVED thier cameras as each new model came out. On the Leicas, i feel like they're stuck in the past ( i say this loosly because i dont want to start anythign, and i dont know all the facts), putting a digital sensor in a 35mm rangefinder body. My main thing is; i'm the type of person who likes to get what i pay for. I want something that is worth the price, and i dont like being taken advantage of. thats sort of why i have a pc instead of a mac, and a sony instead of a leica. I drive an american car, not a german import, and i dont mind buying my clothes at a department store instead of abercrombie or hollister. It makes me feel a little better about myself i guess.... one last thing, then i'll get off my soapbox.. if you own a leica, and someone comes over and you wanna show off your new toy and pull that out...
you- "Hey man, check it out, i got this sweet little baby for 5 grand!"
them- "oh really? thats expensive! umm... whats special about it?"
you- "its small... and it doesnt have a mirror"
them- " ohh... huh.. well.... ok. so where's your house?"
you-(holding up camera and lenses) " you're looking at it....."

 

[Alex_B]

Remember the ol'sayin? "It is more fun to drive a slower car fast than a fast car slow"

But the saying is actually the other way round ... at least I never heard it your way

BTW, I do not own a watch either.

 

[usayit]

But the saying is actually the other way round ... at least I never heard it your way

BTW, I do not own a watch either.

The exact reason why it is sooo PAINFUL (at least for me) to borrow a friend's viper and not leave the parking lot.

The exact reason why it is sooo much FUN to take a 35hp go cart around a track at the local amusement park.

 

[Alex_B]

i'm kinda with sothoth on this... I just dont see the value in a camera that expensive that i couldnt get in say, an old used minolta 35mm body or something (for film at least). I feel like the big camera companies (canon, nikon, pentax, and sure, even sony) have only IMPROVED thier cameras as each new model came out. On the Leicas, i feel like they're stuck in the past ( i say this loosly because i dont want to start anythign, and i dont know all the facts), putting a digital sensor in a 35mm rangefinder body.

well, the main thing about my SLR is the sensor, and the lenses i can attach. There was not much improvement in all the other things in recent decades. Today's pro Canons feel very similar to the film pro Canons and most of the minor improvements are slight improvements in convenience, but not in image quality.

And if you have very good lenses, there is not much room to improve. Many lenses from "the old times" surpass today's zooms and are close to perfect. So there simply is not too much room for further improvement. In many aspects of craftmanship and especially regarding the glass, the so called past was very good.


Don't get me wrong, I am an SLR shooter for almost 2 decades, but still I see some advantages on the Leica side. And even their minimalistic design is an advantage in my eyes.

 

[Alex_B]

The exact reason why it is sooo PAINFUL (at least for me) to borrow a friend's viper and not leave the parking lot.

The exact reason why it is sooo much FUN to take a 35hp go cart around a track at the local amusement park.

But I like driving in a Porsche sticking exactly to the speed limits so others behind me get really annoyed :lmao: And the best thing is, they know it is on purpose and not because I could not go faster

Not that I personally own a Porsche, but I drive other cars from time to time ....

 

[shorty6049]

while i agree with you on all the plusses on leicas, i think the price is what makes me dislike them ... i just cant get over that

 

[Alex_B]

while i agree with you on all the plusses on leicas, i think the price is what makes me dislike them ... i just cant get over that

I can see it might make you not buy them, but dislike?

They are extremely well made compared to some others, so I can see a high er price. However, you are right, that to some extent you also pay for the name Leica, and for the rather low numbers produced (compared to some SLRs).

But then, if I buy a Canon remote, or a Canon battery, those are sold even more over their value and you only pay for the name

 

[usayit]

My main thing is; i'm the type of person who likes to get what i pay for. I want something that is worth the price, and i dont like being taken advantage of. thats sort of why i have a pc instead of a mac, and a sony instead of a leica. I drive an american car, not a german import, and i dont mind buying my clothes at a department store instead of abercrombie or hollister.

Yup.. then expensive Leica is not for you. My guess is neither is a Rolex since a nice Seiko would accomplish the same task. We all pick and choose our vices to enjoy.. right?

I'm with yah on the car.. as I said.. I drive a Dodge. My toy car was a higher than normal mileage Miata. My cloths are from Kohls, The Gap, and Target. My house (2 bedroom 1 bath) is the cheapest on the block (but comfy). I purchase practically all "my toys" USED for a really low price. My Mac workstation and Laptop was purchased USED through a friend who works for a computer leasing company (I buy off lease stuff REALLY CHEAP) I'm not rich.. I just pick and choose wisely.

if you own a leica, and someone comes over and you wanna show off your new toy and pull that out...
you- "Hey man, check it out, i got this sweet little baby for 5 grand!"
them- "oh really? thats expensive! umm... whats special about it?"
you- "its small... and it doesnt have a mirror"
them- " ohh... huh.. well.... ok. so where's your house?"
you-(holding up camera and lenses) " you're looking at it....."

Funny... I avoid that situation like it is the plague. THe camera is inconspicuous enough that people rarely even notice (another advantage over an SLR). Most think it is an old camera. If I want to be even more inconspicuous, I pull out the R-d1. Once people see me crank the film advance lever they think I'm stuck in the past and have not discovered digital.


VVV notice my signature is a play on this. I have never listed equipment down there VVV

 

[usayit]

while i agree with you on all the plusses on leicas, i think the price is what makes me dislike them ... i just cant get over that

You don't need to pay the high price for a Leica! If you want to enjoy a rangefinder, feel free to get a Voigtlander in M-mount. Wonderful rangefinders with a good selection of glass from Voigtlander, Leica, and Zeiss. How about a VC 35mm f1.2 Nokton low light performer for a bargain of $819?

Shoot... how about a canonett GIII QL17 for around $50 (that was my first).

yeh.. Dislike??? There are alot of nice things we can't afford but we rarely dislike them for that fact alone.

 

[sothoth]

well, the main thing about my SLR is the sensor, and the lenses i can attach. There was not much improvement in all the other things in recent decades. Today's pro Canons feel very similar to the film pro Canons and most of the minor improvements are slight improvements in convenience, but not in image quality.

Agreed, which is why I could care less about the body I use, but I'm more picky about the body only in recent years due to the impact the sensorand image processing have.

 

[usayit]

Just a quick comparison... This is one reason why I enjoy shooting with a rangefinder.

I can shoot all day...
and still meet up with the wife and kid for an evening shopping...
and carry her packages...

without breaking my back.


btw.. those are not totally representative of Leica glass either... some are even more compact. The noctilux is considered by Leica shooters as WAY too big and heavy... it still only the size of a Canon 50mm f1.4... maybe a bit heavier.

oh yeh.. btw... those 4 Canon primes... are for sale too.