What's... (yet another 'Why Leica?' thread)

[drfuzz3899]

...so great about Lecia cameras?

 

I'm a professional photographer jumping the gap from entry level equipment to

professional equipment, and I want to know, what's so amazing about Lecia's that

makes people want to drop thousands more on them rather than a good Digital

Canon or Nikon.

 

Is image quality any better? Or is it just the build quality?

 

Or is it just hype?

 

=P

 

-Jordan

[ellis_vener_photography]

It isn't hype. It is mostly the lenses.

 

In SLR cameras it used to be the quality of the lenses --which still holds true for the wide angles especially when you compare Canon's wide angle to Leica, Nikon, or Zeiss for that matter . Unfortunately Leica stumbled wit htheir first digital SLR andit remains to be seen how it will recover. (the discontinued Leica DMR still has the best image quality of any 10mp DSLR however, But I think that for an all around DSLR camera Nikon D3 and Canon 1Ds MArk 3 are better

 

But Leica's reputation wasn't built on SLR cameras, it is solidly built on the quality of their M series rangefinder bodies and those lenses. A good rangefinder is really a very different kind of camera from any SLR design.

[john_shriver]

If Nikon and Canon built their cameras and lenses in Germany, instead of Japan, Malaysia, China, or Thailand, they would cost much closer to what a Leica costs.

 

An interchangeable lens rangefinder camera is an inherently expensive camera. Much precision needed that just isn't needed in a single-lens reflex.

 

Also, given the low volumes that Leicas prices currently ensure, they don't sell many units of a given product to amortize the development cost. There are probably more Canon DSLRs in stock (awaiting sale) at Best Buy than the total number of M8's Leica has shipped so far.

 

Given that Leica has an inherent cost structure problem from their well-paid German labor with high benefits, they choose to mostly design very top-end lenses. That gives a perceived value for the high prices. The exception is their new Summitar line of lenses, which are what they can do for "value pricing".

[didier]

"given ... their well-paid German labor with high benefits, they choose to mostly design very top-end lenses"

 

that statement could also be made the other way round, ie :

 

"they choose to mostly design very top-end lenses, and so their labour costs are among the highest".

 

The so-called German Quality / German engineering is expensive, for sure. That is true for a Mercedes or BMW, as it is true for their vinyl turntables and for their cameras. It has its price.

Then everybody have their own preference and choose the price / quality ratio that suit them, given the last 1% of quality costs mors than the first 90%.

 

 

 

Didier

[waltflanagan]

<i>An interchangeable lens rangefinder camera is an inherently expensive camera. Much precision needed that just isn't needed in a single-lens reflex.</i><p>What do you base this on? An SLR has a mirror that is constantly flipping up, sometimes at 8 fps. The automated film advance, autofocus, matrix/evaluative metering. None of those even exist on an M.<p>I got a Bessa R for $200 and it works just fine. The viewfinder is even brighter than the M6 I tried.<p>If you think the average Leica is expensive you should find one of those million different anniversary special editions which are covered in the skin of some endangered lizard...

[orvillerobertson]

There's nothing superior about the Leicas these days, including the lenses. You can match

them with the best of the Canon, Nikon, and Pentax lenses, I believe. You can match their

ruggedness and simplicity with an older SLR. You can beat their speed and lack of shutter lag

with the best digital cameras. For me it boils down to just loving them and other rangefinders.

That's good enough for me when I'm out there shooting.

[starvy]

as folks have stated above, if you can spend the money on top end glass from nikon or canon, the quality of optics would come close enough to the best of leica or zeiss optics. they won't be better than leica and not all samples might not have the same level of quality control but they would certainly give leitz glass a run for its money.

 

as for the body it depends what you want. leica does not offer a full frame as yet. very few pro shooters actually use the m8 as their everyday work camera compared to canon or nikon users. however, the quality and history of leica over the years have built up a dedicated following that is not found in any other brand. olympus perhaps comes close to it outside of germany. it really is a little like buying a top end naim or linn amp rather than the best of technics, nakamichi and onkyo. each to their own.

[john_shriver]

There's only one thing that has to be right on an SLR to get accurate focus. The distance from the lens via the mirror to the focusing screen has to be the same as the distance from the lens to the film. That distance also has to be close enough to correct so that the lens can focus to infinity. The only thing the mirror has to do 8 times per second is land at the same place -- repeatability.

 

For a rangefinder, the flange-to-film distance must be exactly correct. The rangefinder must be correctly adjusted at infinity. The rangefinder must have the right rate, so that it is also accurate at close distances. The lens must be perfectly collimated. The rangfinder cam on the lens must be perfectly located, and move at a rate that is correct for the actual focal length of the lens. That all costs, and it costs a lot!

 

Another cost Leica is probably still paying is the employees that they have laid off in the last few years. Very expensive in Germany, very long mandatory severance packages.

[mike-images]

For me there's a Leica Sweet Spot that goes like this:

 

Please note this is Leica M - let someone else answer for R.

 

NOT in the Sweet Spot:

 

*Autofocus

*Telephoto

*Complex Metering

*Very Rapid Film Advance

 

So if you must have any of that then this is not the camera system for you.

 

IN the Sweet Spot:

 

*Superb Glass from 16mm to 135mm (to 12mm with Voigtlander lens)

*Light Weight - though not that light

*Very Compact

*Quiet

*Extremely Ergonomic - a dream to use

*Accurate low light manual focus

*Rugged

*Glass interchangeable between digital and analogue bodies.

 

So if you want to shoot high speed sport with a telephoto and a fast motor drive it's not for you. Up close and personal with a small compact kit and a simple rugged camera it's the bee's knees.

 

Regards

 

Mike

[mohir_ali]

I can fit two bodies and six lenses into a small bag (Domke F-5XB), and if I do my part, I will not get better results with any other gear in the same format. In addition, if I shop carefully, I can try out all sorts of gear and not lose money on the resale.

[john_perkins2]

35mm f1.4 ASPH. That lens is amazing. OK, so you can only focus down to 70cm, but wide open it is sharp yet out of focus areas look creamy. For years it was the lens I used on 90% of personal projects, and on a few assignments too.

 

I still wish Canon would make a small full-frame DSLR and smaller 35 f1.4, but given the space you need for a mirror, it's not gonna happen.

[steven_moseley1]

Hi,

 

If you ask this question in the LEICA forum, do you really expect anyone to say...'yeah it is all hype'?

 

Ask the same question in the casual conversations forum...you might get some un-biased answers...then again you may not.

 

Does it really matter?...no.

 

..but why does a Leica plastic lens cap cost more than twice the equivalent Nikon/Canon lens cap? ..is it the superior German engineering....I do not think so...draw your own conclusions about Leica's pricing strategy.

 

Also, consider the huge price differentials between the Panasonic & the identical Leica digital products....both made by Panasonic in Japan and yet Leica charge FAR more for their items with the little red dot on them.

 

Yes IMO there is some hype, there is some bad overpricing, but they are usually great picture making tools, but do not be sucked into thinking the German made items are always superior to others, because often they are simply not.

[ericd]

IMO there is great optics, build quality but also serious overpricing.

 

I've been shooting with rangefinders, classic MF SLR and AF SLR.

 

In most situations I prefer a rangefinder or a classic SLR.

 

The guys at Nikon/Canon decided for us than a serious photographer should use an Digital AF SLR. Thanks to Leica, Cosina and Zeiss to think different.

[brett_davis1]

I was taking some pictures the other day with a Nikon D1x and 17-55 f/2.8, and then an Epson R-D1 (Leica mount) with a Summicron 50. I compared some of the shots last night and noticed that the Leica shots are much sharper and more pleasing to the eye.

 

Granted, this could be chalked up to sensor differences between the D1x and the R-D1, and the use of a prime lens versus a zoom, but still. The difference was noticeable.

[alan_ginman]

I switched from SLRs to Leicas because I liked rangefinder focussing and they were the only makers of such equipment at the time (mid '80s, I think). Leica lenses are good but nothing special. For me, autofocussing in SLRs is so good it has removed that advantage and I now use a DSLR and love it.

 

Regards

 

Alan

[waltflanagan]

The D1X is older than the R-D1. Compare something from the same time but use whatever you want.

[tigercosmos]

Three things about Leica: rangefinder, fast and beautiful lenses, the art of documenting life... nothing more and nothing less.

[ivo_b]

Mechanical excellence, I'd add.

[tigercosmos]

Yes Ivo!