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

[unpopular]

CONTAX!

 

[Gary A.]

@devermb: Yes. I think you would love and enjoy travelling with a Leica M. The only reservation is the difference in cost is significant. I think the additional cost of Leica is not directly reflected in the image. Similarly, the extra cost of a flagship Canon or Nikon does not translate directly to IQ. You pay a premium for 1) an extremely well built and limited production body and 2) access to Leica glass (as a group arguably the finest group of lenses in the world).

If you are questioning the cost of Leica, then cost is still a consideration. If you seek a small footprint camera for travel and don't want to pawn your first born, I suggest a Fuji X100T or an X-Pro2. The X100T is a fixed lens 23mm, APS-C camera. Consequently, you will have to foot zoom for some of your shots. Personally, I think that on a getaway vacation, (as opposed to a photo expedition vacation), the 23mm would satisfy 80%+ of my needs. If you want more flexibility the X-Pro2 is a bit larger, but is an interchangeable lens camera.

The cameras are fun and have a high build quality. Both cameras have a hybrid viewfinder and can be used with an EVF or an optical rangefinder-like focusing system. Both are mirrorless and are very quiet. With a leaf shutter, the X100T can be totally silent. Fujinon XF lenses are exceptional.

Check them out.

PS- I have a Leica M4-P and I appreciate all the magic Leica has crafted into the camera to make it a sheer pleasure to use.

Do I think a Leica film or digital image is significantly superior to a film or digital image from Nikon/Canon/Fuji ... no. If I was gifted a travel camera and I could choose between a Leica, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Fuji, et al ... I'd choose a Leica. If I had limited funds and had to purchase a camera for travel ... a Fuji. (I'm a fanboy.)

 

[loonatic45414]

Gary... well said. I agree wholeheartedly. I agree Leica may be 6 times the price without being 6 times the quality, but it is the finest one can get once money isn't a factor and I've owned many. Yes, there are many great lenses, I love some of the Zeiss Jena from the 70's and so on. I'm not talking medium or large format, that's a whole other topic.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

 

[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)

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

Any non-medium format Leica. The red dot brand typically has crap sensors.

 

[loonatic45414]

I can't speak for plastic electronic digital cameras that will end up on the scrap pile in a couple years, but I love my M6. Like a Rolls Royce or Rolex, it may not make sense to the masses. There's better for shooting windsurfing, etc, just like there are better vehicles for mud bogging. If you can afford one, you deserve it. If not, enjoy what you have but there's no reason to trash what you will probably never understand & make yourself look like an ass in the process.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

 

[unpopular]

If you're even considering film I'd rather have a Contax G2 (because Contax) or the Fuji that is rebranded as Hasselblad Xpan, or the XPan.

Either that or a Fuji GXIII. An Ultima 23N or an Arcbody. Or an Alpa XY.

What can I say. I don't travel light.

 

[unpopular]

I can't speak for plastic electronic digital cameras that will end up on the scrap pile in a couple years, but I love my M6. Like a Rolls Royce or Rolex, it may not make sense to the masses. There's better for shooting windsurfing, etc, just like there are better vehicles for mud bogging. If you can afford one, you deserve it. If not, enjoy what you have but there's no reason to trash what you will probably never understand & make yourself look like an ass in the process.

From what I've seen at Photo.net Leicas are pretty much play things of perverted old men that call themselves 'street photographers' that are into upskirts.

Please. Check your elitism at the door. Contax cost a fraction of what Leica had and was *FAR* superior. If we're going to get into such snobery, bring it on.

 

[unpopular]

Let me rephrase this in a bit of a less infantile way than just more camera snobbery.

It's ridiculous that only the wealthy can appreciate Leica cameras, as if your income determines if you 'deserve' a finely crafted camera or not. As if only the wealthiest members of society can appreciate some of the best glass in the world.

Any photographer who shoots manual can appreciate Leica. Period. And any dedicated photographer deserves the best equipment. This has nothing at all to do with if you can afford it or not. The rich don't have a refined taste (just look at Trump's gaudy interior decorating and outright assault on typography). It's just a matter of fact that the rich can afford finer things.

My family makes very little. I do what I can with a collection of "classic" lenses and a couple of older bodies.

I understand Leica. I understand the appeal. Don't tell me for a minute that I'm just not worthy or incapable of appreciating Leica due to the economic status I find myself in.

And trust me. I've seen LOTS of terribly photography on leica forums. Truely terrible garbage being passed off as "street photography". Literally, panty shots taken with cameras that cost more than my car. And not just once either. This seems to be a reoccurring theme on Leica forums.

So please. If that's "appreciating" Leica, then I suppose Leica doesn't have much to offer - either that or these perverted old men are simply incapable of truly appreciating what Leica is all about.

Still though. Contax is better.

 

[bert0324]

Old adage: If you have to ask, you can't afford it. But do buy a Leica, say an M6, for a fraction of your 12000. Doesn't neccesarily need a Summicron either, try a Zeiss Planar. Go for it, but don't spend 12000 unless you're absolutely sure that it fits in with whatever your financial commitments are.

 

[greybeard]

No one should ever have to defend their choice of equipment or its' cost on this forum. I have enough of that with my wife (lol). Most of us, if we totaled up what we spend on our hobbies would probably be shocked to see how much we spend. I personally think that the totally mechanical film Leica's are worth whatever they cost because they will perform the way they should perform for ever. As for digital Leica's I have a problem as it has been my experience that electronics age out and become non-functional. Cameras are to photographers what instruments are to musicians. Wynton Marsalis plays a custom trumpet made to his specifications by Dave Monette. It's cost was probably in excess of $12,000.00 . I would speculate that if he were to play the Haydn concerto on it and then play the same piece on a student model Yamaha, few if anybody could tell the difference. Because Wynton sounds like Wynton on whatever horn he is playing as long as it is in good playing order and will play in tune. He will, of course, know the difference as his Monette will play easier, he won't have to work as hard to get the same result. And, his expensive Monette will last for generations because it has NO ELECTRONICS. Incidentally, I have a SS Rolex my wife bought for me 20 years ago and it still runs like a champ. It is worth more today than when she bought it. It doesn't have any electronics either.

 

[Gary A.]

Let me rephrase this in a bit of a less infantile way than just more camera snobbery.

It's ridiculous that only the wealthy can appreciate Leica cameras, as if your income determines if you 'deserve' a finely crafted camera or not. As if only the wealthiest members of society can appreciate some of the best glass in the world.

Any photographer who shoots manual can appreciate Leica. Period. And any dedicated photographer deserves the best equipment. This has nothing at all to do with if you can afford it or not. The rich don't have a refined taste (just look at Trump's gaudy interior decorating and outright assault on typography). It's just a matter of fact that the rich can afford finer things.

My family makes very little. I do what I can with a collection of "classic" lenses and a couple of older bodies.

I understand Leica. I understand the appeal. Don't tell me for a minute that I'm just not worthy or incapable of appreciating Leica due to the economic status I find myself in.

And trust me. I've seen LOTS of terribly photography on leica forums. Truely terrible garbage being passed off as "street photography". Literally, panty shots taken with cameras that cost more than my car. And not just once either. This seems to be a reoccurring theme on Leica forums.

So please. If that's "appreciating" Leica, then I suppose Leica doesn't have much to offer - either that or these perverted old men are simply incapable of truly appreciating what Leica is all about.

Still though. Contax is better.

We all see differently and we all shoot differently. Way back in the film-only days I used a pair of motorized Leicas for work. I did it mainly to be different ... but they worked out well enough for most of what I was shooting. After being different for a spell I returned to Nikon which worked out better than well enough.

This is a thread about equipment. We have all read and heard that photographers make the photo not the camera. But that isn't necessarily and entirely true. I found that the greater the skill of the photog the more importance/difference gear makes. Good/better gear in the hands of a highly skilled photog will definitely improve the images both in content and consistency. Conversely, the same good/better gear in the hands of a novice with little skill will do little to improve the impact of their images.

The highly skilled photog, generally, will capture the 'Exceptional Image' with any camera. Good/expensive gear just makes it easier to capture that image. The greater the ease of capture the higher the consistency.

I have never visited a Leica forum. But what I have discovered in my travels is that many people buy Leicas more as an 'investment' and for the prestige than as an instrument for taking pictures. There are photographers and there are collectors. Fortunately or unfortunately, because of the high resale value (the Leica mystique), there are a ton of collectors in the Leica world.

In general, saying Contax is better, is of course arguable, (that was Carl's specific intent ... to make a Leica killer). And it very well may be better ... for you.

My personal experience with film cameras, I like Contax, I've used Contax, I have Zeiss lenses ... Zeiss and Contax are great lenses and cameras ... in my book they are quite comparable to Leica. Did Contax make a motordrive for their rangefinder cameras ... I don't think so ... so Contax would have failed my bar as a better camera than Leica. Would a non-motorized Leica captured a similar image with similar consistency as a non-motorized Leica ... yes. For my hands, the Leica design and build-quality is better than any other camera I've owned. I also feel that camera 'feel' is the absolutely last criteria to be used in selecting a camera.

I must be digressing ... so in summary:

In general, better equipment, in the hands of a skilled photographer will produce improve images with greater consistency.

There are photographers and collectors. High resale of equipment tend to favor the collector. Collectors will significantly lower the general impact and quality of photos coming from that pool.

Leica has a low index value of cost-to-image-quality.

Get what you want ... the high resale of Leica may minimize any monetary pain if you choose that dump the camera later.

 

[Derrel]

Some interesting points have come up in the last few replies. But the real question keeps coming back to the OP; it is worth $12,000 for a travel photographer to spend that much money to end up with 1) A single Leica camera and 2) two lenses. And the answer really seems to me to be, likely no. Why? Because it is one camera, and two, NON-zoom single focal length lenses. Shooting travel images with two, single focal length lenses is going to lead to a fairly boring overall look. The Leica rangefinder system is built upon selecting a body that has the right viewfinder magnification for the specific "normal" lens you want to put on it, and having then either too much, or too little, viewfinder magnification for your wides or your longer-than-normal lens.

The Leica was deigned originally as a snapshot camera, as a camera that could literally SNAP! a shot, back when groundglass focusing and tripods and 2-minute camera set-up periods were common and when big, hulking cameras ruled the world of "serious" photography. Barnack's camera brought with it the freedom to see the world, with a FAST-handling, light, small camera. The idea was revolutionary in its era, and by the early 1930's, the Leica system was well on its way. By 1953, the M3 was out. In 1984, the M6 debuted, and ran until 1998, when the M6 TTL (TTL flash control) came out.

The Leica M6 (heralded earlier as God-like perfection) had one of the most-pathetic flash-synch speeds of all-time, 1/50 second. A leica tradition for decades. Think about that: a camera so tradition-bound that the makers consider that ANY flash shot can be handled by a 1/50 second top speed. Remember, Leica is a camera system originally designed just a couple of years before flashbulbs were invented in 1928.

Is the $589 Metz flash that allows M-digital cameras to synch flash at above 1/50 second even still in production? Leica has for decades, been plagued with slow flash sync limits that were bypassed r other camera makers by the 1960's.

The Leica system has poor viewfinder/composing abilities even with a tele a short as 75mm...you squint and imagine what it is you see in that teeny square for the 75mm lens. The Leica is a rangefinder: the Contax G-series is NOT a true rangefinder system, and is an advanced AF-type camera that looks similar, but which is not the same thing; the Leica rangefinder system is designed for 28mm, 35mm,and 50mm lenses, mostly. It cannot always accurately focus 90mm or 135mm lenses at close distances; the viewfinder system is/was designed for close-range, semi-wide-angle pictures. Think iPhone 6. The iPhone camera philosophy closely emulates what the original Barnack Leica was supposed to be: a street shooter, at closer ranges.

If you want to do macro work, or take flash photos during daylight hours, or do creative flash-fill, or take telephoto pictures, or pictures of fast-moving action, or to show long-range sights with a 135mm or 200mm or 70-300mm or a 70-200 or a 17-35 or 24-70mm zoom, or to have any zooms, then the Leica lens system has no real options. IF you'd be happy with a 35mm and a 50mm lens and one camera to carry across the world, then yeah, drop $12K on that mini-kit. But realize you're losing macro, close-up, medium tele, long telephoto, and all zoom options (Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 excepted). And you've pretty severely hurt your flash options as well. Think of it as a $12k iPhone 6S Plus. Only bigger, and heavier, and without the good video capabilities and internet and phone and the photo-sharing capbilities of the smartphone.

I'm not really sure that the modern L qualifies as "better equipment" in the year 2017, as Gary A mentions. When he was using the system, Leica was "better built". But a system with a narrow lens selection, no zooms, no telephotos, no macro capability, and no autofocusing...is that really "better" in 2017?

 

[unpopular]

In general, saying Contax is better, is of course arguable, (that was Carl's specific intent ... to make a Leica killer). And it very well may be better ... for you.

That's kind of my point. Zeiss/Classic Zeiss/Kyocera was better because Contax. Not for any real reason. Just because. The debate between Contax/Leica is the rich people equivalent to Canon/Nikon.

 

[loonatic45414]

Are all Contax people this insecure? I think it's a fine camera. Not sure why all the hate. Leica or Contax (there... better?) are the step you take when you're ready to get serious. I made less than $30k a year when I got my M6 with 50mm Summicron and 90mm Tele-Elmarit 90mm. Didn't cost anywhere near $12k.

I shoot medium format and large format up to 5x7, I appreciate a quick shooter but still want quality glass. To the person who says a Leica makes a terrible travel camera, maybe you should buy a Canonet or early Yashica with a 45mm fixed lens and teach yourself to appreciate it.

I don't care what other people do with their Leica, there are lots of crap photos no matter what the platform. All I'm saying is after spending decades with a Minolta SRT-101, I was able to afford a Leica M6. We've been best friends ever since.

I almost forgot.. Contax is a fine camera also. Yes. It is.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

 

[chuasam]

I can't speak for plastic electronic digital cameras that will end up on the scrap pile in a couple years, but I love my M6. Like a Rolls Royce or Rolex, it may not make sense to the masses. There's better for shooting windsurfing, etc, just like there are better vehicles for mud bogging. If you can afford one, you deserve it. If not, enjoy what you have but there's no reason to trash what you will probably never understand & make yourself look like an ass in the process.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

Unlike a Leica, a Rolex is a genuinely good watch. Totally inhouse right to the type of steel or gold. Right up there with Grand Seiko in terms of quality.