what kind people will buy leica

[luis_colon]

<p>i will be soon one the owner of leica m8. after saving for a long time .<br>

to me is very espcial to own one. the question to all of you how sharp is sharp. is leica lens beyond in clarity to L series canon lens.<br>

other notice was in the craigslist site you never see a leica lens for sale. <br>

my question is idea when you buy the lens is for life or you are so rich that you dont care to sell the gear.<br>

is a leica become more like cult. do i make sense<br>

luis</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>I used to think it was mainly rich people who bought Leicas (especially M8 and M9s) but after hanging around forums which feature rangefinders I've noticed that many:</p>

<p>1. Save for a while to buy the expensive models. (I admire the ability to put off gratification)<br>

2. Sacrifice - would rather have the camera than a nicer house or car. They would have that kind of cash on hand.<br>

3. Use credit<br>

4. I think a rich person would rarely buy a Leica. I know a few and they would much rather have the cash in the bank.</p>

<p>If you want to buy used Leica stuff look on RFF. They are always buying and then selling stuff. You might get a good deal. </p>

<p>Yeah I guess the Leica lenses are sharp. It also has something to do with the distance of the lens to the film or sensor so I hear.<br>

I've bought a lot of camera gear over the last 6-7 years and have not even tried to sell it. Some people though have a habit of buying gear, trying it out and then selling in just a few months. Habit or sickness, I don't know.</p>

<p> </p>

[SCL]

<p>The notion of a Leica cult is nonsense. People typically buy Leica gear because of its quality in terms of manufacture, clarity, tight tolerances and the ability to hold its value moreso than many other brands. There is lots of used Leica gear sold thru notable retailers around the world as well as large auction sites. The issue in much of the Leica lens gear isn't purely sharpness, but rather a combination of resolution and contrast, as well as how unsharp light is presented (known as bokeh). Unfortunately their results in the digital side have been mixed at best. Leica R owners have been pretty well let down as of this date, but are promised something in the future; the DMR production was quite limited and very expensive - but delivers excellent results which are only now being matched with Nikon's latest top end entries. The M digital side has been more successful, but again is somewhat disappointing in that there isn't a full frame sensor in an M body. So, be excited about buying into the Leica line, but remember that it isn't the camera which makes the photographer.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>""""The M digital side has been more successful, but again is somewhat disappointing in that there isn't a full frame sensor in an M body.""""</p>

<p>The Leica M9's sensor is 24 x 36mm ,or full frame.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>The answer is that all kinds of people buy Leicas. Really. Once you've owned a Leica for a while you'll see what I mean.</p>

[raymond_tai]

<p>Before I even heard of Leica I had Nikons and my Minolta user friend and Canon user roommate told me I was a snob for choosing Nikkors when FD and MD's will do the job for much less. Oh well. </p>

[songtsen]

<p><i>"Some people though have a habit of buying gear, trying it out and then selling in just a few months."</p></i>

<p>I wonder whether this has something to do with the way camera bodies lose much of their resale value 12-18 months after introduction. With a DSLR, it makes sense to trade in early. Not sure how it works with digital Leicas.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Steve - right. I forgot the recent introduction of the M9. Hopefully it will live up to its advanced billing as it moves into the mainstream.</p>

[starvy]

<p>this is not a science. those who dig leica do so for a multitude of reasons. as the purchase is likely to be rather more expensive than anything else out there, usually, the buyer consciously covets the buy. leica lenses are optimised for contrast, sharpness and resolution wide open unlike any other lenses. so traditionally, the low light shooter had preferred the bright viewfinders. the age we live in is rather more complicated. there are low light options through other formats and some of these others might even better leica in terms of sheer performance.<br>

to me leica is a little like 'naim' for audio or 'bristol' for cars. there is an element of exclusivity, history and excellence associated with it. presently, i only own a 72 year old lens but have used the m cameras and other lenses. the feel of the camera is something out of this world to someone who appreciates this level of quality.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>In the past medical doctors and dentists often bought a Leica; like owning a Rolex too; they wanted a fine camera.<br>

The old doctor next door gave the old obsolete camera to another neighbor; since it was "just an old film camera". The receiver later sold it to a local pawn shop after the doctor moved away; and was thrilled to get 200 bucks. It was just a M3 and DR Summicron; and case; and external meter; and original boxes too; and manuals. It was the doctors stuff; the husband. His wife; another doctor too gave it away after he died; plus gave away his metal lathes too.<br>

<br />Leica was used somewhat with newspapera and magazine wotrk before the Nikon F came out. In the later 1960's Rangefinder stuff was in a deep funk; camera stores were awash in the old crap. Folks would trade in a Leica and pay extra cash to buy a Petri slr; neverready case and a 135mm tele.<br>

<br />Leica has always been a higher end good product; they cost more than a Zorki, Instamatic, Argus C3, Brownie Bullet or todays low end 150 buck P&S digital camera. Thus the masses tend not to use Leica; and folks with more money do.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Who will buy a Leica? The same people that buy other cameras, photo enthusiasts, passionate artists, no-talent gear heads, high talent visionaries, people who like the image in being seen with a Leica, people who make images to be seen, regardless of Leica, top professionals, on and on and on...</p>

<p>There are also people who have raging talent who helped elevate Leica as an iconic photo making tool, of course, not mentioned at all yet in this thread:</p>

<p>Bresson, Winogrand, Webb, Harvey, Allard, Abell, Haas and others…</p>

<p>The M9 will be my next Leica, some time next year, after I am done shooting all my Kodachrome…my sole reason for buying Leica gear in the first place. The M8 misses the mark, I sold mine long ago, needlessly cropped $4,000 lenses, annoying I/R cut filters that actually caused my 28 Summicron to have a loose front barrel in swapping them on and off, terrible battery life, freezes, weird aliases in high contrast edges with superior glass, not at all in line with what I get from my 4 other bodies….save up a little longer, skip the M8 and get a real Leica, the M9, which works fantastic from what I have personally experienced.</p>

<p>Of course it is not the same as the other Leicas, the mechanical ones, but you can't expect it to be, it is a computer with a Leica mount on it.</p>

[patrick_stack]

<p>Luis -</p>

<p>I bought a new M-6TTL in the early 2000's, following my retirement. As a long time serious amateur using several different makes, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus, Canon, etc, I had always been quite satisfied with the types I had been using. I also owned Rolleiflex, Hasselblad and large format equipment. A friend had been using Leica since the sixties, along with Canon, and casually introduced me to the Leica brand.</p>

<p>In retirement I had lot's more time to devote to the hobby, joined a collector's club in Seattle and met many other folks, using just about every camera type imaginable. Gaining more familiarity with the Leica line and seeing for myself the results they produce, I made the decision to make the purchase and bought the M-6, 35, 50 and 90mm lenses, along with polarizer and the usual filters for black and white photography. A relatively sizeable financial investment, not casually decided upon.</p>

<p>I'm not "wealthy," but am fortunate to be comfortable and able to not just afford the Leica, rather I can justify it by my complete satisfaction with it. It is all I had expected it to be, having had it now for some time and being comfortable with it's use, I feel it's even more enjoyable than I had thought it might be. Mostly I use slides, or black and white. The slides, projected on a good screen, just seem to over load the eyes.</p>

<p>However subtle, the optics are able to resolve details with remarkable sharpness and color. There is truly a "dimensional" detail in the images, not so easily seen with other optics. Simply stated, I find none of my other quality lenses able to fully compete with the Leica glass. Close, but not the same.</p>

<p>There is some sentiment about Leica being grossly overpriced, not really worth it, for the rich, or for the snobs. These terms or characterizations I find either ill considered, or just plain offensive. If one is able to justify the purchase and is satisfied with the equipment, no other measure is required. I have zero intention of ever selling, rather it will be mine for the long term.</p>

<p>I'm 68, (for another month,) so pleased with my cameras performance that I wish now I had made the move to Leica long ago. I'm primarily a film user, so have no idea just how well the digital lineup at Leica would perform. But I'll bet you can get plenty of info through P-Net and other internet sources. Best of luck with your efforts.</p>

<p>Patrick </p>

[Brian1664876441]

I just bought a used M8, decided to try it out before committing to an M9. "Committed" also comes to mind. I have, and will continue to use, Nikon, Canon, Contax, Retina, and Leica film-based ranefinders.

 

I bought it to use with older lenses. "Better" means a lot of things to a lot of people. To me, Rendering of a lens is important. I have a lot od modern lenses, but prefer an older Sonnar. A leica M8 allows you to select lenses made over the last 80 years. to me, that equates to "better".

[rogerwb]

<p>The superb "feel and fit" of the M series is what has kept me faithful to the brand. To me, it is an ergonomic masterpiece in that I can operate every control while keeping the camera at eyelevel. It became an extension of my hands and eyes long before the days of viewfinder readouts. <br>

My first M was purchased in Germany, while stationed there in the service of the US Army. I believe that M2 cost me about 200 USD at the time. I acquired the 35 and 90 mm lenses after a time and used them for 15 years until an economic crisis necessitated selling the out fit. I continued on with lesser cameras but nothing ever felt as comfortable to use, nor was anything else to prove as reliable. <br>

Sometime later, luck allowed me to come across an M3 which the owner (by inheritance) only wanted to trade in or sell for something easier to use. The price was very reasonable and I vowed that never again would I be without a Leica M. Only two of the lenses are Leitz, the 50mm collapsible Summicron and an older 35mm Summaron. The others are a 90mm Steiheil Culminar and a doggy 135mm Zeiss Sonnar. They all perform very well for my purposes.<br>

I will likely never be able to afford an M8 or M9, nor any of the newer Leica lenses. What I have will have to do for me for as long as I am able to operate them. I do have confidence that they will still be working for at least that period of time.</p>

[ulrich_brandl]

<p>I bought my M8 just for one resaon: Carrying comfort. A typical setup for travel (camera body, 3 lenses) weighs less than half of the Canon DSLR equipment I used to carry (and still use if necessary). Don't forget that the much smaller bag is much lighter too. And this comfort comes without penalty on image quality. In fact the wideangles are much better than I was used from SLRs and DSLRs. But again, neither an improvement of image quality nor the "leica nimbus" was the reason for this purchase. It is really a wonderful lightweight (but not all-purpose) equipment. OK, now the M9 raises the question if it is still a good idea to start with the M8.<br>

I think comfot can justify the expense, others pay the same amount of money to get a better seat on a single transatlantic flight pair (8-20 hours). The lighter camera equipment is a joy for many years.</p>

[john_gellings]

<p>I'm not rich. I bought my M8 used because I was a used film M user for a long time. Once I wanted to go digital, I knew it had to be an M. I prefer classic style controls, manual focus, and no nonsense menus... Leica offers this. DSLRs always stayed home... the M comes with me. </p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Leicas appeal to collectors and users. Leica caters to the collectors and hence sells the cameras almost as a piece of fine jewelry. There's no other reason I can think of to buy a super platinum or gold plated collectable. But for all the "old world" materials that combine to make Leicas more expensive than their raw photographic capability would justify, there's no doubt that they have been and still are fine cameras with lenses whose optical capability are second to none.</p>

<p>In the past, the people who wanted to actually use the cameras as photographic tools could find reasonably priced older cameras (such as M2s and M3s) and somewhat older lenses which would work great and not require a new mortgage on the house. It's a little tougher in the digital age.</p>

<p>Rangefinders have some advantages in terms of weight and compactness, and using a Leica is a photographic experience unlike the typical DSLR experience. You'll find fewer features, and the classic user interface will force you to slow down and consider what you're doing (which can be beneficial) but the output could be worth it.</p>

<p>I used to use 2 Leica M2s (one was actually a KS15 the military version of the M-2R) for my main camera and switched to the Canon 5D and the Sony A350 but I've recently ordered a late model M8. I've missed my rangefinder and hope to pull those leica M lenses out of my bag where they've been collecting dust for a while. Maybe I'll be able to afford an M9 in a few years when we're up to the M10 or M11.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Besides the handling, the intangible of Leica glass and it's apparent glow is really the main draw for me. I shot with Nikon, Hasselblad XPan and Leica aspheric glass New Year's Eve and when I look at all the film, in addition to being critically sharp, with great color saturation and contrast, the images made with fast Leica aspherics took on a luminance that was a marked departure from the other images...they seem to self illuminate, to glow...<br /> This is one image that shows this affect off, I did a slideshow for my girlfriend last night and she was blown away by the life these images took on.<br /> I think the thing that works best for me in using Leica is that they make tools that are as simple as a hammer and nail, but as sensitive as I am about the subtle things like the way a shutter button feels and the way the lens draw in light and color. <br /> I am almost sorry I waited so long to start using them, but at least now I am fully appreciative of these attributes.</p><div></div>

[mjferron]

<p>The same person who would rather have a Martin Guitar instead of a Yamaha. Same person who'd rather drive a Porsche instead of a nice Toyota. A Martin won't really make you play better and a Leica might not give your photographic vision a boost but knowing you have the finest tool made for the job will remove the validity of anyone trying to blame their equipment.</p>

[zdenek]

<p>There exist people who like tradition, quality and history. So why not to take pictures with Leica or Hass, wear Rolex or write with Montblanc 149 ? To afford these one needs not to be rich.</p>

[daniel_ob2]

<p>Buying M8 or M9 "Leica" has nothing in common with Leica, or, in another word you get "postmodern Leica" which is something else. Real Leicas are over and they just cannot be compared with money.</p>

[uk]

<p>Well, I'm just incredibly rich after making a small fortune in wet fish. I like nice things, so I buy Leica's for friends and family.</p>

[tim_barker1]

<p>Luis,<br>

You'll rarely find Leica gear on a site like Craigslist because it's really a niche product. The average person running around this country today has no clue what a rangefinder is. They know Canon and Nikon. Not Leica.<br>

As someone else already mentioned, go to RangefinderForum if you want to immerse yourself in Leica and other rangefinders. Lots of stuff for sale there every day. Tons of info as well. And I don't mean to take away anything from this site (many users frequent both sites). It's just that the RF forum is where the vast majority of talk is about rangefinders.</p>

[jason]

<p>My Leicas date back to the 60's.The M3 purchased '67,the M2 in 1970(built about 1957). My 50mm Summicron collapsible('54), the 35mm Summaron f2.8 Goggles(60's) and a135mm Tele-Elmar(1972).I added a M6TTL in 2000,in L.A.,trading an never-used Pentax67.Reason for owning and continuing with film,longevity,quality seldom even close(i use Nikon,Pentax,Canon,film and digital).The joy of a compact camera, the true ease of use, theway the whole system responds. My M3(named Ziggy) has been all over the world. Last longer than a lifetime..mine nearly did! Heart-attack in Feb 2009. Right now in Africa, snapping my 1st-grandson,The M3 snapped his Mom's birth, her wedding 2 years ago. My results of wedding(only part as part of retinue) had nicer contrast and better dimensionability than top pro's hi end digital(Nikon). So I guess I am not rich, love the look and feel of system and results. Using film a lot and scanning for some jobs. Digital compact Pentax and Canon for my pro work on internet.<br>

Used the M8. Not happy with large amount of out of focus pix! I see similar on M9 results passed off as art! My results when sharp, outstanding.<br>

Enjoy,welcome.</p>

[luis_colon]

<p>thank you Jason<br>

thank you all those nice words<br>

best regard</p>