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

[chuasam]

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

ridiculous hype and marketing.

If you gave me $12k and told me to get something for world travel.
I would get all of the following cameras and bring them.

Option 1:
Camera 1: Sony RX1RII
i've put it up against a Leica and the Sony won.

Camera 2: Olympus EM1 Mk2 with the 12-100 f/4

Camera 3: Olympus TG4 (for truly rough and underwater)


Option 2:
Camera 1: Sony A7S II (for low light)
Camera 2: Sony A7RII (high res)
selection of lenses
Camera 3: Nikon AW1 (for rough and underwater)
Camera 4: Sony RX100 V (for discrete shots)

 

[runnah]

I'd pick up one of those new Fuji medium format jobs. Bigger yeah but much better bang for the buck.

 

[greybeard]

. . . 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.

That is very true. People are still making great photos with their Nikon D90's, D700's, Canon 5D's etc. but, they didn't have to pay $12,000.00 for them. If I'm going to pay that kind of money for something it should have a trade-in upgrade option every 5 years or so.

 

[chuasam]

I'd pick up one of those new Fuji medium format jobs. Bigger yeah but much better bang for the buck.

Yeah but it isn't exactly small and subtle

 

[Derrel]

How about the Canon SL-1, the mini-dslr from the world's best-selling camera maker, and the two pancake primes, their 24mm f/2.8 and their 40mm f/2.8 lenses, for a small,light, discreet Leica-sized body and two autofocusing, through-the-lens viewing, smaller-than-Leica prime lenses, and then a small, light zoom, or a very fast-aperture 85/1.8, and then their 70-200 f/4 L-IS USM as your long-range lens?

And since you now have $9,000 left, why not pick up that amazing Sony zoom camera with the 1" sensor?

 

[runnah]

I'd pick up one of those new Fuji medium format jobs. Bigger yeah but much better bang for the buck.

Yeah but it isn't exactly small and subtle

Yeah but with a Leica you have to awkwardly hold it in such a way so that everyone can clearly see the branding .

 

[greybeard]

I had a friend who has passed away who was a big Leica owner/fan. This was back in the bad old days of film (lol). For him, the look, feel, and name, was worth whatever he had to pay for his Leica. And, if I had unlimited funds, I would probably have some Leica equipment too.

 

[devermb]

How about the Canon SL-1, the mini-dslr from the world's best-selling camera maker, and the two pancake primes, their 24mm f/2.8 and their 40mm f/2.8 lenses, for a small,light, discreet Leica-sized body and two autofocusing, through-the-lens viewing, smaller-than-Leica prime lenses, and then a small, light zoom, or a very fast-aperture 85/1.8, and then their 70-200 f/4 L-IS USM as your long-range lens?

And since you now have $9,000 left, why not pick up that amazing Sony zoom camera with the 1" sensor?

You are reading my mind: next question was: what compact high performing camera could I get: A while ago I was going between the Leica Q with a a 28mm summilux lense (Leica Q (Typ 116) Digital Camera (Black) 19000 B&H Photo Video) or the Sony mini camera with a 35 mm lense (Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R II Digital Camera DSCRX1RM2/B B&H Photo), but I want a 50 mm lens option.

 

[devermb]

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

ridiculous hype and marketing.

If you gave me $12k and told me to get something for world travel.
I would get all of the following cameras and bring them.

Option 1:
Camera 1: Sony RX1RII
i've put it up against a Leica and the Sony won.

Camera 2: Olympus EM1 Mk2 with the 12-100 f/4

Camera 3: Olympus TG4 (for truly rough and underwater)


Option 2:
Camera 1: Sony A7S II (for low light)
Camera 2: Sony A7RII (high res)
selection of lenses
Camera 3: Nikon AW1 (for rough and underwater)
Camera 4: Sony RX100 V (for discrete shots)

How did the Sony win against the Leica (which one)?

 

[Derrel]

How about the Canon SL-1, the mini-dslr from the world's best-selling camera maker, and the two pancake primes, their 24mm f/2.8 and their 40mm f/2.8 lenses, for a small,light, discreet Leica-sized body and two autofocusing, through-the-lens viewing, smaller-than-Leica prime lenses, and then a small, light zoom, or a very fast-aperture 85/1.8, and then their 70-200 f/4 L-IS USM as your long-range lens?

And since you now have $9,000 left, why not pick up that amazing Sony zoom camera with the 1" sensor?

You are reading my mind: next question was: what compact high performing camera could I get: A while ago I was going between the Leica Q with a a 28mm summilux lense (Leica Q (Typ 116) Digital Camera (Black) 19000 B&H Photo Video) or the Sony mini camera with a 35 mm lense (Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R II Digital Camera DSCRX1RM2/B B&H Photo), but I want a 50 mm lens option.

I honestly think the 28mm fixed lens of the Leica is a BAD choice for much photography, unless you like that focal length a whole lot. And the same with an almost-$4,000 fixed-lens compact camera stuck with a 35mm fixed lens...neither of these qualify as high-performasnce to me, but more as HALO products, designed for that subset of people who are enchanted by lens f/stop...I've known many of these people over the past 30 years...they talk abou, "The f/1.4!", and "The f/1.7!" and the "f/1.2, the f/1.2!" and so on...seemingly unaware that wide aperture images have so,so little in-focus that many pictures look like mistakes to non-obsessed, regular people. I've grown tired of seeing one eyeball in-focus, and everything else OOF.

Yeah...a 50mm lens option would be nice. The full-sized sensor? I totally get that. But a FF sensor and one, fixed focal length, at the wide end of the spectrum? Seriously...I'd rather have an iPhone for that. Meaning being stuck with one semi-wide lens length on a smartphone camera.

$3800 to $4000 for ONE lens? No. Not versatile. LOUSY for portraits, lousy for distances over 12 feet. Everything with the Leica will look wide-angle. Everything with the Sony will be a pseudo-wide. The iPhone might even be superior in many situations, with the smaller sensor and shorter lens giving hyperfocal DOD in situations where that's a bonus.

Real photography is best with lenses of the appropriae focal lengths for the situation. Sometimes, that might be a 28, or 35mm lens, but could EASILY be a 50, or an 85, or a 135mm lens, or a 200mm, or a 300mm length. There is a very real reason that Leica rangefinder died off when quickly, after Nikon developed the F-system beginning in 1959. Being able to see through the lens is a big deal. So is lens intercahangeability to suit different conditions.

 

[devermb]

How about the Canon SL-1, the mini-dslr from the world's best-selling camera maker, and the two pancake primes, their 24mm f/2.8 and their 40mm f/2.8 lenses, for a small,light, discreet Leica-sized body and two autofocusing, through-the-lens viewing, smaller-than-Leica prime lenses, and then a small, light zoom, or a very fast-aperture 85/1.8, and then their 70-200 f/4 L-IS USM as your long-range lens?

And since you now have $9,000 left, why not pick up that amazing Sony zoom camera with the 1" sensor?

You are reading my mind: next question was: what compact high performing camera could I get: A while ago I was going between the Leica Q with a a 28mm summilux lense (Leica Q (Typ 116) Digital Camera (Black) 19000 B&H Photo Video) or the Sony mini camera with a 35 mm lense (Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R II Digital Camera DSCRX1RM2/B B&H Photo), but I want a 50 mm lens option.

I honestly think the 28mm fixed lens of the Leica is a BAD choice for much photography, unless you like that focal length a whole lot. And the same with an almost-$4,000 fixed-lens compact camera stuck with a 35mm fixed lens...neither of these qualify as high-performasnce to me, but more as HALO products, designed for that subset of people who are enchanted by lens f/stop...I've known many of these people over the past 30 years...they talk abou, "The f/1.4!", and "The f/1.7!" and the "f/1.2, the f/1.2!" and so on...seemingly unaware that wide aperture images have so,so little in-focus that many pictures look like mistakes to non-obsessed, regular people. I've grown tired of seeing one eyeball in-focus, and everything else OOF.

Yeah...a 50mm lens option would be nice. The full-sized sensor? I totally get that. But a FF sensor and one, fixed focal length, at the wide end of the spectrum? Seriously...I'd rather have an iPhone for that. Meaning being stuck with one semi-wide lens length on a smartphone camera.

$3800 to $4000 for ONE lens? No. Not versatile. LOUSY for portraits, lousy for distances over 12 feet. Everything with the Leica will look wide-angle. Everything with the Sony will be a pseudo-wide. The iPhone might even be superior in many situations, with the smaller sensor and shorter lens giving hyperfocal DOD in situations where that's a bonus.

Real photography is best with lenses of the appropriae focal lengths for the situation. Sometimes, that might be a 28, or 35mm lens, but could EASILY be a 50, or an 85, or a 135mm lens, or a 200mm, or a 300mm length. There is a very real reason that Leica rangefinder died off when quickly, after Nikon developed the F-system beginning in 1959. Being able to see through the lens is a big deal. So is lens intercahangeability to suit different conditions.

What most pokes through in the various exchanges I've had here is that complete reversal that Leica has undergone in the digital age: its film cameras last for decades because only the film needs to improve, but it's digital needs to change every three years or so because the sensor tech needs to stay superior or at least competitive with the other brands. I can't afford to shell out $7k every three years or so to get the latest Leica sensory tech in a new camera.

Has DSLR sensory technology gotten better than film? My first digital camera -- a Canon E20 I got in 2006, looks downright grainy now.

BTW, I spent more than $10k on two Otus lenses -- 55mm and 85mm, and they are so good that you touch the image and almost feel whatever is in the photo. But they are too heavy to carry outside my studio for a long time, so I am looking for something of this quality to carry around the world: light in weight, high quality, hence the research into Leica I am doing.

 

[Derrel]

Yes you have described the Erwin Puts digital-era paradigm shift article he wrote a couple of years ago. Film allowed every camera to become better as film got better, but digital sensors and replacement parts and repairs for these things have a finite lifespan.

I think that you should buy a compact camera that can use the two Zeiss otus lenses that you have already bought,but for travel of course, get smaller handier lenses. Leica M3 used to mean something from 1953 to 1975, but it no longer means much to me. I would rather have a Nikon or Canon or a Pentax in DSLR form or Sony mirrorless even.

 

[loonatic45414]

If you can buy the best for just $12k, why shoot anything else? From the time I bought my first Leica, I never looked at anything else.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

 

[greybeard]

If you can buy the best for just $12k, why shoot anything else? From the time I bought my first Leica, I never looked at anything else.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

You sound like my friend I mentioned in an earlier post. I personally would not be happy shooting exclusively Leica because I like to shoot some macro and long tele's. Using a Leica for those things is like putting an outboard motor on a bathtub and calling it a speedboat.

 

[loonatic45414]

If you can buy the best for just $12k, why shoot anything else? From the time I bought my first Leica, I never looked at anything else.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

You sound like my friend I mentioned in an earlier post. I personally would not be happy shooting exclusively Leica because I like to shoot some macro and long tele's. Using a Leica for those things is like putting an outboard motor on a bathtub and calling it a speedboat.

Leica isn't for everyone. I'm not criticizing you, please don't criticize me. There's something I felt that came out in my photos, more vibrancy, more 3d feel, more life.

Shooting with any other glass is a waste of time for me, except for a couple choice Zeiss lenses.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, but I see non-photography people being polite & saying nice things to others about their lifeless photos, yet they are fascinated at those taken with a Leica.

I don't shoot digital, It's often too contrasty & over produced to the point of looking fake for my taste. But that's just my opinion.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk