Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by DocFrankenstein, Nov 3, 2004.
I'm just wondering. What is so special about it?
History and reputation. Leica was one of the very first still cameras to use 35mm film. They are wonderful, high quality cameras.
Does their quality really merit their exhorbitant price?
I was shopping for a digital P&S for my g/f today and saw a Leica 35mm body for about £900 :shock: That's more expensive than a Nikon F100. Is the Leica really that much better or are they trading off their aforementioned history and reputation?
I once asked a similar question in the Leica forum at photo.net ...What I got out of that "can of worms" was that it's like buying a Mercedes Benz.
Any car will get you from A to B...just like any camera will expose film. It's in the details where the differences will show up.
And, you do have to pay for the aforementioned history and reputation.
I'm sure it's due to the quality of the lens...but I have talked to people who swear that there is an intangible quality in photos taken with a Leica.
First of all, let's clarify what we are talking about here. There are a few models of cameras that say "Leica" these days that aren't completely built by Leica (or at all), but still have the big Leica price. Also, Leica SLRs have never been really popular. Most folks are talking about Leica rangefinders when they say Leica.
They are very high quality cameras, but yes, you are paying for the elite status and collectability of the name. Personally, I believe you are also paying extra for the status of the names Nikon and Canon (not as much as Leica, but some extra $), particularly among the entry level SLRs. Leica rangefinders have been used and endorsed by many of the famous photogs of the 20th century, such as Henri Cartier Bresson.
Another reason for increased cost would be that they are not as mass produced as many brands.
Will buying a Leica make your photography better? Very unlikely, but they are a joy to use, and if you love to use your gear, well that may affect your photographic ability. I bought my first Leica this summer: a 1937 model that is sort of tricky to use. Just holding it in my hands there is an amazing sense of quality to the build that is absent from most modern cameras.
There are some models of Leica rangefinder that are not as popular among collectors; these can be had for a more reasonable price.
Most definately. As a violinist, when I stepped up from cheap rental violin to a nice instrument it did help my playing.
is this one any good?
I can't read the description, but that one looks a lot like the one I have. I don't know enough about Leicas to really know if it's any good as far as value. Mine has a few operational quirks, and of course there are no "features" to speak of. These old ones use the screw mount lenses. I enjoyed shooting with it a lot, but mostly it's been sitting on the shelf. I prefer using my vintage medium format cameras, or a Nikon FM2n for 35mm.
Here's a pic from my Leica (a III(F) I think). It has a 35mm f/3.5 Leitz Elmar on it.
film: Tri-X @ 1250 developed in Diafine
the description says it's original from WWII and it works fine
I don't know if I should go for it, I've got a Zorki 4, looks kinda similar, has a screw mount and I don't use it much, but this one is a leica
These older Leica have a different thread mount then the M series models right?
I swear I can spot a leica just from the photos. Everytime someone posts a leica shot, I say 'yup, that's a leica'.
Only look/feel that's ever made me want to shoot film.
Those lenses do give photos a 3D feel.
Separate names with a comma.