Worth $12,000 to buy a Leica and two lenses?

[devermb]

I am poised to buy a Leica M. I am looking for something I can carry the world round, sometimes in physically rough places. I also want something discrete. I have Canons, but they are large, with large lenses, and they are not as durable presumably as a Leica built with more metal.

I am also intrigued by the quality of photos of the Leica. What separates a Leica M photo from other photos?

Any observations, criticisms of and answers to this would be much appreciated.

 

[tirediron]

If you're a Leica owner, it's obvious. If you're not, nothing. I belong in the latter camp. Leica makes great gear, it will (or at least used to) last for years, but the actual images? There's nothing that makes them any better or worse than any others. That is due to the skill of the owner of the finger that presses the button.

 

[Derrel]

Leica lenses are assembled to very exacting standards, and built robustly. As to the quality of the photos of the Leica: MANY of the leica shooters of today are experts, true, decades-of-working-at-honing-their-craft shooters. Leicas are less popular now than they were in the 40's and 50's and 1960's. The lenses are built for a LIFETIME of use.

As to the quality of the photos, this article addresses this Leica mystique quite well: The Judgment Of Paris: The Blind Taste Test That Decanted The Wine World

Look up the Irwin Putz blog; he has some great entries on the Leica mystique.

 

[alexis.alvarez]

Leica lenses are assembled to very exacting standards, and built robustly. As to the quality of the photos of the Leica: MANY of the leica shooters of today are experts, true, decades-of-working-at-honing-their-craft shooters. Leicas are less popular now than they were in the 40's and 50's and 1960's. The lenses are built for a LIFETIME of use.

As to the quality of the photos, this article addresses this Leica mystique quite well: The Judgment Of Paris: The Blind Taste Test That Decanted The Wine World

Look up the Irwin Putz blog; he has some great entries on the Leica mystique.

Derrel,

Um, the link is to an article on the wine industry.
aa

 

[tirediron]

Derrel,

Um, the link is to an article on the wine industry.
aa

Think about it!

 

[runnah]

Leica lenses are assembled to very exacting standards, and built robustly. As to the quality of the photos of the Leica: MANY of the leica shooters of today are experts, true, decades-of-working-at-honing-their-craft shooters. Leicas are less popular now than they were in the 40's and 50's and 1960's. The lenses are built for a LIFETIME of use.

As to the quality of the photos, this article addresses this Leica mystique quite well: The Judgment Of Paris: The Blind Taste Test That Decanted The Wine World

Look up the Irwin Putz blog; he has some great entries on the Leica mystique.

You know whats better than a sucker? A rich sucker.

 

[Dave Colangelo]

If you point a Leica at the ground, forget to focus it and don't bother to meter anything, it will take a bad picture.

If you point a FED2 at a beautiful landscape, think about composition, remember all you have learned of the zone system, it will take a beautiful photo.

So what you ask is the difference, ten out of ten times that properly serviced Leica will fire the shutter and it will be just the speed you set it to. Three out of ten times that FED2 will fire the shutter and it may or may not be within a stop of what you need it to be, until that time you fire it and the lens falls off....

There are plenty of big Leica lenses and small cannon lenses. The Leica is not more discrete than your cannon because it costs more, its more discrete because its mirror-less (something you can obtain for far less than 12K). My entry level Nikon D3300 has been all over the world with me, in the snow of southern Vermont, the summer sand of the beach, the rains of Ireland, tossed in and out of camera bags and banged around overhead compartments. It still works fine... I consider it very durable.



Regards
Dave

 

[runnah]

They made a movie about that with Alan Rickman and Chris Pine. it was quite good.

Bottle Shock (2008) - IMDb

 

[Derrel]

My apologies to Erwin Puts, the Leica author. I had his name spelled incorrectly above. He has written quite a bit about the Leica system and its lenses, its history, and its relationship to photography, in both film and digital eras. The thing about the Leica is that it has always been built with ultimate longevity and durability and ruggedness in mind. As Mr. Puts has mentioned this used to be a viable way to make cameras--objects that would last for decades, using film, which would improve year after year and decade after decade.

But now cameras are no longer simply Optical / Mechanical Devices but also have a computer / digital aspect and their lives are much shorter than for film cams. This means that that $5,000 to $7,600 camera body is no longer a lifetime investment.

I really think if you have to ask the question is it worth $12,000, the answer is likely no it's probably not worth that much money for you. As Dave mentioned one of the compact small frame Nikon camera bodies would likely provide the digital aspect with very affordable lenses and the cost and value are in accord with the modern paradigm. And when one comes right down to it the rangefinder style camera is severely limited on things like macro and even medium and long telephoto lenses.

 

[Didereaux]

I am poised to buy a Leica M. I am looking for something I can carry the world round, sometimes in physically rough places. I also want something discrete. I have Canons, but they are large, with large lenses, and they are not as durable presumably as a Leica built with more metal.

I am also intrigued by the quality of photos of the Leica. What separates a Leica M photo from other photos?

Any observations, criticisms of and answers to this would be much appreciated.

If you think buying a Leica is going to improve your photography then spend the $12K...you'll just lose it somewhere anyhow.

 

[greybeard]

I can see the appeal of Leica. But, like Derrel pointed out, a large part of any digital camera is the sensor and micro-processor and, as we have all seen, these things go obsolete quickly. What is "STATE OF THE ART" today will become "LONG IN THE TOOTH" in just a few years. I personally use a Sony A6000 with a Sigma 30mm f/2.8 for personal travel and love it.

 

[fmw]

I used Leica rangefinders for some things years ago. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it was because I bought a Leica collection for a song from someone who needed money. I liked and appreciated them. I had models ranging from the IIIf to the M6.

The one very positive thing I can say about them is that they could use wide angle lenses without a retrofocus design. No SLR could match what a wide angle Leica lens lens could do - including Leica SLRs. That is still true today. SLR's didn't really catch up to Leica lens design until the advent of computer aided design and SLR wide angles never did and can't. Perhaps they are making mirrorless wide angles without retrofocus. If so that is a real plus.

 

[KmH]

. . . these things go obsolete quickly. . .

Obsolete. I LMAO every time I see that said here on TPF.
One does not need the latest and greatest to make nice, even high quality, photographs.

 

[jcdeboever]

Personally, I want an M6. Reality, I can take just as bad a picture with a Nikon FM. I like the M6 because it's simple and laid out well for my big paws. Is it worth the extra $4500 (with summicron 35 f2)? Not a chance. If I had butt loads of cash, sure why not. I look at photos from the masters and some of them had basic, non flashy cameras. Photos from Gary a, limr, Derrel, to name a few, prove that it's not the camera but the photographer.

 

[Derrel]

. . . these things go obsolete quickly. . .

Obsolete. I LMAO every time I see that said here on TPF.
One does not need the latest and greatest to make nice, even high quality, photographs.

And that's why a Nikon D3300 or D3400 and $1,500 in lenses could equal or better the $12,000 two-lens Leica kit. And why the $20 bottle of California wine can equal or better the $175 bottle of French wine.