Why do people pay so much for Leica Lenses?

[mike dixon]

My entire, well-used Leica kit of two bodies and six lenses cost substantially less than a year worth of depreciation on an average new car. I get more satisfaction and use from the camera equipment than I would from an average new car. I don't understand all the fuss.

[ray .]

<i>guilt of knowing that some of the money could have been

given to a worthy charity.</i><p>

The only guilt I can see is if you're just not capable of getting the

potential out of the camera. A rank beginner in photography

certainly doesn't need a Leica, but if he's got some experience

and is talented and progressing in his craft, and knows why he

prefers it, then why not?<p>

If you had to ask this question and sell your camera system

before because you felt you had too much cash invested, then

maybe you don't have enough confidence in what you're doing

with it, and should have something less expensive. You can do

a hell of a lot of good photography with a $400 Hexar AF.

[Troll]

Any adults still posting on this thread?

[icuneko]

<...My M4 and Canon 50mm are at least equal to what Capa and Bresson were using,...>

 

 

Using an M4 does not mean one will produce what Capa and Bresson did.

 

 

Consider: My chainsaw is at least equal to what W uses on his ranch,...

[rj]

Michael Bridges, I was talking about this thread, not the forum. This thread is about equipment costs and the justification of it.

[randy_santos]

You guys should really seriously consider getting out and like meet some women or something. Don't worry, it's not the size of your lens it's what you do with it.<div></div>

[travis1]

My m4p/summaron cost LESS than a brand new d70 body alone.Yes, both produce pictures (for d70, stick a lens on). Claude, go to the Nikon forum and ask the same question.

[kevin m.]

Cool pic, Randy.

[jasper1]

Michael Bridges, I was talking about this thread, not the forum

 

Apologies.

[aricmayer]

Canon EOS 1DS MARK II--------$7,995.95

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L --------$1,429.95

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L --------$1,119.95

 

Total ------------$10,545.85

 

Leica M7 .72--------- $2,795.00

Leica 90mm f/2.0 Summi M Asph--------$2,395.00

Leica 35mm f/2.0 Summi M Asph--------$1,949.00

 

Total------------$7,139.00

 

Having a camera that stands the test of time.... priceless.

[Brad_]

Easy choice...

 

Assuming I was interested in spending the money, given a choice between the above two

systems, I'd pick the Canon.

[douglas k.]

Yes, easy choice: the cited Canon lenses are much faster than the cited Leica glass, and the Canon has film and development costs of $0. And the film-based cameras will not stand the 'test of time' in a few more years.

[ray .]

Yeah, and painting is dead.

 

Does the Canon have shutter lag? Sorry, but to me there's something essential about having a cam that responds instantly at the milisecond you want the snap.

[EricM]

My D70 has less shutter lag than my F100...I can't believe it actually.

[Brad_]

My 20D is dead instant - sure beats my sony at around 1 second for AF + shutter lag...

[aricmayer]

I'll take both, please, and a side of mayo.

[rj]

Given the above two systems, I would choose the leica system. What I would do is trade the m7 for an mp, then I would shoot all the black and white film I could. I am quite thankfull for the differences in camera equipment.

[john_perkins2]

This reminds me of another question. Why do people spend over a year photographing the

same project?

 

And then, amongst the people who do, however they get their funding, what kind of

equipment do they use? Usually a camera that's durable, that's still in production and

replaceable. Film that's not about to be discontinued or changed. A single lab for

developing, who you know you can count on. A lens or two. Simple.

[brambor]

Cool pic Randy.

 

I would take both of the systems. I do own the 85mm1.2. It's a sweet lens but it is probably 3 times the size of the 90mm summicron. I have the EF 24 1.4 (similar sizewise to the EF35L) and it is about two times the size of the 35 Summicron. After you've shot with the Leica system you will realize that for walk around camera it is perfect. The Canon System is great too but if you tried Leica you won't want to tote the Canon around. It's just too big and heavy.

[kent_tolley2]

This is the funniest thread I've read maybe ever. My hats off to to the jokers, esp those with wit. The pic of the girl sucking the red Leica dot was frosting on the cake. A little magenta on my screen though. Still . . .

[fotografz]

It's always a black & white debate here on the Leica forum ... colored by agendas of

justification one way or the other ; -)

 

Leica gear IS expensive ...if you don't have the money. Not so expensive if you do. Nothing

wrong with not having the money, any more than having it. I've experienced both (prefer

the latter over the former : -)

 

What's wrong with actually using the gear to make thousands of photos AND being a

connoisseur of a finely made tool? Not having a finely made tool isn't justification for not

shooting is it? Why assume the opposite?

 

What's the issue with liking the results from a Leica lens any more than liking images from

a $15 Russian gem? The cost difference? So what? Are we bankers?

 

"I would need to take a huge hell of a lot of pictures to feel like I was getting my money's

worth." -claude

 

What about taking a great one? Would you be getting your money's worth then? Would

that opinion change if the lens cost $15.? Or is "a billion served" the justification for

paying top dollar? 10 fps must be worth many thousands more than a manual single shot

camera then, huh?

 

"My Leica can do this and your DSLR can't OR "my DSLR can do this and your Leica can't".

kinda sounds like an extension of "my father can beat up your father."

 

There are some pretty good photographers on this forum. You could give them an oatmeal

box and a sheet of photo paper and they'd make an interesting photo. Give them a Nikon

D100 and you'll still get an interesting photo. A Leica or Hasselblad, same result. Different

levels of image quality to be sure. However, it's nice that there are certain qualities from

each and different things to appreciate with each.

 

So, it all comes down to money, not photography. Hmm, oatmeal box or a Leica?

Hmmm...

[bill_marshall1]

Funny . . . I got into a conversation with a prominent Leica repair service a few days ago. We got around to talking about the cost of Leicas. He muttered "Leicas have always been overpriced." "Why?" I asked. "That's the way they do things in Germany," he replied. "They expect to get more."

 

I was surprised to hear a man who has looked into the guts of the camera disparage the cost. I expected him to speak more like another techician I spoke with last year who called one Bessa "a piece of junk" & criticized it for not having Leica quality parts.

 

It's amusing to see that even those who are expert on the internal workings of these cameras disagree about these things just as we do. It's nice to know that the last five years or so have brought increasing choices into the RF market & that people are finding cheaper ways to get the same job done. That's called progress. As much as it's nice to admire a piece of precision equipment, it is a very expensive tool for a job that can be done just as well for the most part by a piece of equipment that is more efficiently produced at lower cost. It's great to have Leicas & to know that someone "still builds them like they used to," but it's also terrific now to have an increasing number of alternatives at a variety of price points. Continued competition will only lead to increasing innovation.