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

[robbins.photo]

Good grief, he is conflicted about dropping 12k on a camera system and is asking other shutter bugs what they think. Part of him loves the idea of "Leica" and another part of him can't justify the cost. This is not a life changing decision, unless he is going to charge it on a credit card with 25% interest or something like that.

Ok, true. But if we accepted this as a premise then none of us would get to play Dr. Phil. Or Dr. Who. I dunno, one of the two...

 

[Frank F.]

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.

Leica? There are people who like ha, other who do not like ha ... Technically the best Like ha currently is the SL: Amazon.com : Leica SL (Typ 601) Mirrorless Digital Camera with Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90mm f/2.8-4 ASPH. Lens (International Model) No Warranty : Camera & Photo

But if you only have a budget of 12.000 US$ you should think twice.

My choice was Nikon big and Fuji small.

In the price region you should be able to get the GFX medium format Fuji camera with three lenses, or cheaper and smaller the excellent XPro2 or X-T2.

I currently have the X100T, want to upgrade he to the X100F anbd possibly buy the GFX too.

 

[Solarflare]

Well, its your money, so - its your choice. But personally I definitely dont think its worth it to spend $12k on Leica M, no. Quite frankly, with the release of the Fuji G system, everything else in that price range seems poor bang for the buck now.

If I really would want Leica M, I would get a M9 or M-E from the used market and old leica glas from eBay. Much cheaper, but hardly worse in quality, plus these old lenses have more character than the new stuff and the CCD sensor from the M9/M-E already has a legendary status; I dont have much contact with Leica M users even on the net but it seems to me many of them still prefer the rendering of the old CCD sensor.

I would estimate that would run for about $4k total; $2.5k for the camera and about $1.5k for two lenses.

Either way, if you want to get into Leica M, good bang for the buck really shouldnt be your priority anyway. Why does Leica still exists ? I believe it is because the most imporant part of a camera is always the lens and Leica still puts massive priority into the quality of their lenses.

 

[Gary A.]

I keep seeing this post and I keep thinking about it ... So here is a more thoughtful answer. But firstly, you asked a general question ... so my answer is equally general.

No, from purely a photographic viewpoint. Other camera systems will give you much more cluck for the buck with no significant, if any, reduction in IQ.

From a collector's viewpoint, yes. When you come back from your travels you can sell the Leica system and not lose much on the resale.

If you are a photographer, (as opposed to a collector), and you must have the Leica rendering that you see coming from Leica lenses ... and you demand a Full Frame camera ... then get a Sony A7 series camera, Leica adaptors and some Leica lenses. If you can live with an APS-C sensor, then get a Fuji, Leica adaptors and Leica lenses. The best of both worlds. (If you want a rangefinder-ish experience and Leica lenses get a X-Pro2.) If I was in your shoes, and a photographer That is what I'd do. If I was in your shoes and a collector, I'd spend the $12,000 and travel the world with a Leica around my neck. (Which honestly, is pretty cool thing to do ... but the Sony or Fuji options are more practical but less romantic.)

 

[loonatic45414]

I'd adapt the Leica glass to whatever camera body that's good for the money. All the other lenses aren't very impressive except for Zeiss and maybe Voigtlander.

I prefer the non-ASPH Summicron 50 and Tele-Elmarit 90. You can get both for under $2000 and it's outstanding glass. I can't see enough of a difference in the ASPH that would justify the cost anyway.

If it's zoom you want, Zeiss made an excellent one for the Contax/Yashica mount 40mm-80mm if I recall.

I don't know how well these lenses work with the full-frame digitals out there though.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

 

[trstick1]

Long time ago, as a student, I attended a photo workshop and being a Nikon guy, I owned a Nikon F2 camera, a lady came up to me asking for help on how to use the Nikon F1 camera she brought and she has no photography training at all. I asked her why did you buy that Nikon F1 camera? She said she saw many great photos taken with that F1 camera and thought her F1 camera will take great photos too. I told her it is the lifetime of photography skills to make a great picture, not the camera.

Sent from my Mix using Tapatalk

 

[greybeard]

I keep seeing this post and I keep thinking about it ... So here is a more thoughtful answer. But firstly, you asked a general question ... so my answer is equally general.

No, from purely a photographic viewpoint. Other camera systems will give you much more cluck for the buck with no significant, if any, reduction in IQ.

From a collector's viewpoint, yes. When you come back from your travels you can sell the Leica system and not lose much on the resale.

If you are a photographer, (as opposed to a collector), and you must have the Leica rendering that you see coming from Leica lenses ... and you demand a Full Frame camera ... then get a Sony A7 series camera, Leica adaptors and some Leica lenses. If you can live with an APS-C sensor, then get a Fuji, Leica adaptors and Leica lenses. The best of both worlds. (If you want a rangefinder-ish experience and Leica lenses get a X-Pro2.) If I was in your shoes, and a photographer That is what I'd do. If I was in your shoes and a collector, I'd spend the $12,000 and travel the world with a Leica around my neck. (Which honestly, is pretty cool thing to do ... but the Sony or Fuji options are more practical but less romantic.)

And I think the OP gets all this. Like I wrote, he is conflicted

 

[Gary A.]

I keep seeing this post and I keep thinking about it ... So here is a more thoughtful answer. But firstly, you asked a general question ... so my answer is equally general.

No, from purely a photographic viewpoint. Other camera systems will give you much more cluck for the buck with no significant, if any, reduction in IQ.

From a collector's viewpoint, yes. When you come back from your travels you can sell the Leica system and not lose much on the resale.

If you are a photographer, (as opposed to a collector), and you must have the Leica rendering that you see coming from Leica lenses ... and you demand a Full Frame camera ... then get a Sony A7 series camera, Leica adaptors and some Leica lenses. If you can live with an APS-C sensor, then get a Fuji, Leica adaptors and Leica lenses. The best of both worlds. (If you want a rangefinder-ish experience and Leica lenses get a X-Pro2.) If I was in your shoes, and a photographer That is what I'd do. If I was in your shoes and a collector, I'd spend the $12,000 and travel the world with a Leica around my neck. (Which honestly, is pretty cool thing to do ... but the Sony or Fuji options are more practical but less romantic.)

And I think the OP gets all this. Like I wrote, he is conflicted

I think I nicely summarized all the pros and cons. Often a summary is helpful in making a final decision. Sorry you think otherwise.

 

[trstick1]

There are cameras like Sony and Fuji with better exposure and sharpness results and much cheaper than Leica and you can get adapters to fit Leica lenses.

Sent from my Mix using Tapatalk

 

[droaingsong]

I would go for Fuji as its much cheaper and better results in terms of sharpness.

 

[greybeard]

I keep seeing this post and I keep thinking about it ... So here is a more thoughtful answer. But firstly, you asked a general question ... so my answer is equally general.

No, from purely a photographic viewpoint. Other camera systems will give you much more cluck for the buck with no significant, if any, reduction in IQ.

From a collector's viewpoint, yes. When you come back from your travels you can sell the Leica system and not lose much on the resale.

If you are a photographer, (as opposed to a collector), and you must have the Leica rendering that you see coming from Leica lenses ... and you demand a Full Frame camera ... then get a Sony A7 series camera, Leica adaptors and some Leica lenses. If you can live with an APS-C sensor, then get a Fuji, Leica adaptors and Leica lenses. The best of both worlds. (If you want a rangefinder-ish experience and Leica lenses get a X-Pro2.) If I was in your shoes, and a photographer That is what I'd do. If I was in your shoes and a collector, I'd spend the $12,000 and travel the world with a Leica around my neck. (Which honestly, is pretty cool thing to do ... but the Sony or Fuji options are more practical but less romantic.)

And I think the OP gets all this. Like I wrote, he is conflicted

I think I nicely summarized all the pros and cons. Often a summary is helpful in making a final decision. Sorry you think otherwise.

Not at all, I like your summarization.

 

[table1349]

Maybe the OP would like to look at this:
Used Leica Deals, save some money on lenses for your new Leica M! – STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

[hteasley]

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.

Nothing. Leica lenses are always at least great, with some that are unbeatable, but really, the marginal differences between Leica and the best of other manufacturers are slight, and can favor either.

Go with Leica if you like to shoot manually. I do, so Leica is what I shoot. If I didn't want to shoot manually, I'd shoot something else.

Sent from my Pixel C using Tapatalk

 

[WhaleDaughter]

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.

The questions I'd ask myself are, if I'm traveling and get tag-teamed (or lose it myself), can I afford (financially and emotionally) to lose a $12000 camera system? And as a follow-up, how much will the stress of worrying about loss/theft/damage take away from my enjoyment of travel and photography?

Could you perhaps rent this set-up to see if it will really fill your needs? There are plenty of times I've romanticized something, only to have it fall flat when I finally try it out.


"Rule 408: Time is not the boss of you"