Tell me why...

[mike_hodson]

Forgive my ignorance. What is the big deal about Leica cameras?

 

I have read that they are very quiet, smooth, reliable, simple and

are of unmatched quality. Images are said to be of fantastic quality

as well...are the lenses just that good? It's still 35mm film isn't

it?

 

Please enlighten me.

[EricM]

...you've answered your own question

[crackers_.]

bokeh

[jeff_rivera5]

Mike,

 

Pick one up, shoot with it, and come back and tell us why.

[peter_white2]

We're actually all members of a cult. For a modest fee you can be initiated.

 

We accept Visa, Mastercard, un-cut diamonds, and vestal virgins.

[mike dixon]

I'm in charge of virgin certification, so let me know if you'll be

using that method of payment.

[al_kaplan1]

During the month of January the virgins don't have to be vestal. Hurry, time's running out!

[george_b1]

The cameras or the virgins?

[mike_hodson]

Well I knew you were all in a cult but I don't think I can afford the entry fee...my bank balance and supply of virgins are both a little low.

 

So when buying these incredibly expensive cameras...are you paying for the name and the luxury? A BMW is nice but it gets from point A to point B the same as a Chevy.

 

Are Leicas technically better than other cameras? Respective of their high price?

 

I'm trying to figure out why someone who is not an eccentric millionaire would buy them.

[blake_abbott]

<They feel really good. (purposefully ambiguous response)>

Peter, would those be the ones with or without the painted bodies?

[________1]

One M type Leica and a Snoopy aviator cap. You�re set for life!

[mike dixon]

Top Five Grooviest Things about a Leica:

 

5) You no longer have to wonder how your pictures would look if

you had a better camera.

 

4) Makes a great weapon in a bar fight/mugging/riot.

 

3) Standing on top of camera is wacky stunt when you're really

drunk at a party--doesn't hurt the camera.

 

2) Pisses off people who like to get pissed off about other

people's equipment.

 

1) Chicks dig 'em.

[leica ron]

After spending most of the last year with a 4x5 Wisner View Camera I thought my path was set. Then I found myself at my local dealer trading in my Mamiya 6 and he showed me a used Leica M6 Classic which he had just got in. He said that I could do a swap if I was interested. I was skeptical ...

 

Then he popped on a 35mm Summicron lens (f2) and handed it to me. It was amazing how the thing felt in my hand, how easy it was to focus, how the shutter fired, how the film was wound, how easy the metering was for a manual camera. I popped in a roll of Tri-X and home I went to shoot some low-light stuff.

 

The results blew me out of the water, the way that the glass handles low-light amazes me, it just looks good ...

 

Of course this means I went from one M6 (Mamiya 6) to another (the Leica) and I haven't looked back since. The Leica is my travel camera, the everyday beast is still my Mamiya 7II but it's getting less and less use since it's baby brother came along ...

[george_b1]

Mike - Serious partial answer for a minute. We have a 1995 BMW 525i that has over 80,000 miles on it, and it's just getting broken in. It has never been in the shop for anything other than routine scheduled maintanance. Since the summer of 1995, our neighbor is on his third Chevvy, two of which have spent many days in the shop, at exhorbitant cost, for problems not covered by warranty. On a cents-per-mile basis, he's spent almost three times as much as we have for transportation from Point A to Point B.

 

You buy quality and durability, you get quality and durability. My early M4 (mid-1960s) is still humming along - - just like our BMW.

[andy_piper2]

Mike:

 

First it must be said that there are cameras that are quieter or smoother or more reliable or simpler and of equal quality.

 

Someone is bound to jump up and yell - "My Mamiya 7 is quieter" or "My Rolleiflex twin-lens is smoother" or "My Nikon F is more reliable." And they'd all be right.

 

The deal is in the package - there are no cameras AS quiet/smooth/reliable/simpler/etc, that ALSO have - interchangeable lenses up to f/1.4 and covering 21mm to 135mm (and 15mm/12mm if you count the Voigtlander lenses available), 10-millisecond shutter response, no mirror shake, etc.

 

The lenses are good - a couple are astounding. Purely from the point-of-view of average image quality, they aren't necessarily "that good" relative to other lenses, especially based on price. They cost 4x as much and are definitely not 4x better.

 

Realistically, what you are mostly paying for is: 1) the fact that it fits on a Leica body; 2) the fact that the last 5% of improvement in quality (image or build) almost always costs as much as the previous 95%; 3) inefficient, low-production-run hand-manufacturing.

 

Which doesn't justify the high cost - it simply explains it (sort of).

 

And yes it is absolutely 'still 35mm film." Any larger format camera will zip right past even a Leica 35mm image for grain and absolute image quality.

 

In the right setting, a Leica with a 35mm f/1.4 lens will simply eat the lunch of a Mamiya 7 with a 60mm f/4 in terms of the quality of the images (which is not the same thing as "image quality"). 1/60th second trumps 1/8th second if the subject is alive and moving. And it's image quality WILL be better than a 35mm SLR @ f/1.4 - less shake, better lens performance at f/1.4 (but likely little difference outdoors @ f/5.6).

 

If you buy into Leica because "it's the best camera in the world" - you'll be sorely disappointed (and poorer!)

 

If you buy into it because

 

a) you really want to take the pictures that 35mm rangefinder cameras excel at - moments, gestures, expressions under poor light, unobtrusively (not invisibly!), with the slowest film possible - or

 

b) because you like the idea of carrying a camera and 15mm, 21mm, 35mm, 90mm, and 135mm lenses in a package smaller and lighter than a Nikon F5/Canon EOS-1 with one fast mid-range zoom - or holding a camera and lens that weighs less than the SLR lens alone -

 

- then you may find them a joy.

[jay_.]

<<A BMW is nice but it gets from point A to point B the same as a Chevy.>>

 

Not unless a)there's a mechanic in the trunk of the Bimmer, or b)it's on a flatbed, or c) points A and B are both in your garage. I owned 6 Bimmers between 1983 and 2003, finally it was either switch brands or buy a house next door to the dealership.

 

<<Are Leicas technically better than other cameras?>>

 

Some Leicas, like the CL, the R3-R7, and the new Digilux2, aren't even technically Leicas. But don't tell that to the people who own them or they foam at the mouth.

 

<<I'm trying to figure out why someone who is not an eccentric millionaire would buy them.>>

 

You don't have to be an eccentric millionaire. One or the other is sufficient.

[james_.1]

German cars are unreliable. Leica M is reliable. The big deal about Leicas: They're the sh*t.

[paul_neuthaler]

Nice prose, Andy. I love the Ciceronian oratond style much better than the clipped Senecan. You're the man. Great explanation.

[george_conboy1]

I can't sign on to your BMW vs. Chevy conclusion. I just drove 400 miles to New York in my BMW (with an M6 along for snaps). There is no other car I would rather take on that ride (and I own a Chevy as well). Jeff Rivera has it right: try a Leica M series camera and let us know what you think. That said, I have been using Leicas for 25 years and my photos are still no good. I just like them better than any other camera.

[Sanford]

Summicrons @F2.0

[Bill Blackwell Images]

I have experienced first hand my Leica M enlargements blow away those from a Bronica medium format camera. The newest Leica M lenses are simply unsurpassed for sharpness, color saturation, and contrast. As has been suggested, you would have to experience it for yourself to believe a 35mm negative could turn out such astonishing results.

[john_perkins2]

Definitely a cult. To the uninitiated the camera looks like something out of the 50s.

It's the sort of camera that got left behind when burglars broke into my flat a couple

of years back. It's the camera you slip under your jacket in a riot when the

demonstrators turn against the press and you don't speak the language. When you

see another cult member, you eye up their equipment, checking to see if their camera

is more damaged/more covered in black tape than theirs. If it is, then you're probably

looking at a very committed photographer. Ms are not easy cameras to use, but the

people who know how to use them... When you go to a newspaper or magazine office,

and no one comments about the bashed-up antiquated hunk of metal you're carting

around, that's when you know they're serious about photography.

[akochanowski]

Sanford: Canon 50mm 1.2L

Zuiko 40mm 2.0

etc.

(hint: there is no difference, it's all hype)

 

Mike: it won't make you a better photographer, and may make you worse. The real danger is that you will become an obsessive prattler instead of shooting pictures.

[wai_leong_lee]

May I also add that it's not just about the lens quality or the pictures... Fit, feel, finish, style and tradition are reasons to buy Leica as well.

 

A Timex tells time. So does a Rolex.

 

But people buy Rolexes not because they can tell time (or even tell time more accurately) but because it is a pleasure to use and wear a Rolex.

[stephen_w.]

A "serious" answer:

 

1: It's the guarantee of quality, mechanical and especially optical. Leica and MF is only equal handheld, which is how most photography is performed.

 

2. It's the cheapest way into quality photography, as, if one shops carefully buying used, one may get all, or more of their money back.

 

3. Lenses up to f1.0 are available. Try that with MF. It's the only one available, as the Canon 2lb Howitzer has been discontinued.

 

4. No mirror slapping up and down.

 

5. Compact and portable (convenience). You want REAL quality? Use a 4X5 or 8X10.

 

6. Supported by company, and freelance service for cameras and lenses as old as 75 years.

 

Beat that.

 

Steve