Would you still invest in Leica?

[aaron_mullins]

I am at a quandary. I currently own three camera systems �

Hasselblad 500 series, a Nikon SLR system complete with a D100, and

a Contax G1 with a 35mm f/2 and a 90mm f/2.8 lenses.

 

I am impressed by the quality of digital but it still isn�t there

compared to film. It may be there in a few years, but not yet.

 

Recently, I traveled to Europe from the US. Photography was not my

primary reason for traveling. Thus, I left the heavy equipment home

and took the Contax system.

 

I was very pleased with my results. Using the small camera with

somewhat fast lenses allowed me to take pictures I would have missed

with other equipment. However, I wanted more. I wanted a quieter

camera with faster lenses (f/1.4). Obviously, this means Leica.

 

So here is my question. Is it foolish for a non-Leica user to start

a Leica M series system with every other 35mm based manufactures

switching to digital?

[douglas k.]

I am not planning to buy any more film cameras unless and until I see convincing evidence that they will continue being useful in the digital age. I'd rather save my money for equipment that allows me to eventually get the same (or better) quality without the expenses related to film and processing. And like you, I already have several film cameras. So my answer is "no."

[james_h]

I had similar thoughts recently before I bought my M6TTL and 35mm 'lux. My father and the general photo 'media' want to convince us to go-digital, but going digital has to be a larger personal choice. I can't say that I don't still have cautious thoughts about investing in Leica, but I have already made the largest potion of my Leica purchase, new M6TTL and 35mm Lux lens with USA warranty. I'm on the verge of buying a new 90mm lens and after that probably a 15mm Voit. The 90mm will be purchased grey-market making it much less expensive than the camera and lens I already have.

 

The above �basic� system will have cost me about $5,700.00 dollars which will buy a lot of digital stuff these days. For the same money I could have bought a couple of Canon digital bodies (w/ 1.3x magnification, which I don't like) and another EOS lens for my EOS system. But an EOS system is not compact (I did not say light) like a Leica M or Contax G system can be.

 

I read and agreed with arguments that hypothesized that the Leica M system might be one of the few 35mm systems still worth buying in as a long term investment and image making tool. Maybe this is true, but there are many other 35mm cameras both pro and amateur that continue to sell well in the age of digital success and sales hype. Ultimately I believe it boils down to if you can afford the price of the Leica systems and if after you take the financial plunge (or rent/borrow) if your results are what you hoped for.

 

My Leica-novice opinion is that a manual camera allows much easier �control� than a camera with more features (program, A-priority, auto-focus, etc) that is primarily designed to operate as a semi-auto tool and has to be switched to manual to be used in that manner. These auto systems may work in manual mode but that was not their primary design. It may not be worth the price premium but one feature I�m enjoying very much on my 35mm �lux lens is the depth-of-field markings which me to focus where and how I want very easily.

[bob haight]

I think if you want portability for travel, Lieca M looks real good at f1/4. The comparable Nikon system is too heavy as you stated. So, my answer is "yes" to consider Leica. I think film will be around for a long time to come.

[william_patterson]

You can use a Leica camera essentially forever and it will still keep its value.

 

A camera like a Leica also doesn't look like a "real" camera as many people expect, so they probably won't think that you are a "real" photographer and go about doing the things that they normally do. This gives you the chance to take more candid photos.

 

A Leica is much quieter than SLR's and other rangefinders and it will allow you to take photos in situations where the noise from the mirror or shutter of another camera might attract a lot of attention.

 

You can hand old the Leica a slower shutter speeds that you would normally hold a SLR. There is no mirror movement and the shutter is smoother.

 

There is a tremendous selection of high quality lenses, including fast ones.

 

My favorite camera is a Nikon F5 and I wish that I also had a Leica system for all of the above reasons.

[chip l.]

I respectfully disagree with Douglas. I think the demise of film is greatly over estimated. So much so that I in the past 12 months built my dream M system (after long delays).

 

Sure digital has advantages, but film does too. By the time digital does take over film, Leica will have an answer for M users.

 

Chip

[aaron_mullins]

Thanks for the replies. Keep them coming.

 

I forgot to mention that one of the other reasons that I am considering switching from Contax to Leica, focusing.

 

I shot five rolls of film (38 per roll, 190 total). Four pictures were out of focus. Not a bad average, but still a problem. All of them were natural light at a wedding and three of them were great shots except for focus. I thought that I had used the focus lock properly but I goofed.

[bobtodrick]

I too have to specifically disagree with Doug. <save my money for equipment that allows me to eventually get the same (or better) quality without the expenses related to film and processing>. Lessee....price of a digital camera that has the same resolution as film (20megapixel required)...OOPS no such thing. Closest would be a Kodak or the Canon 1ds...price around $6000+. Fast computer running photoshop, lots of memory cards (remember, a 40meg file output by a Canon 1ds will fill a 1 gig CF after 25 pics). Long term storage (these size file probably means standalone hard drives). A decent printer...say all told $9000 plus. I don't know how much film you blow through Doug, but using this reason just doesn't wash for most of us.

[michael_kastner]

In this answer, when I say "Leica", I mean "Leica M".

 

I used to own the best that Nikon that could offer (and then I sold it all). The best that Nikon (and maybe others) could offer seems to be the fact that you can here (a) get up to around 100% viewing of the subject area you want to get developed, and (b) get into teles of well over more than 135 mm.

 

I haven't gotten into digital yet for the simple reason that I think it may still take 5-10-20 years until things have boiled down to a common denominator here.

 

Therefore I stick to my Leica M sytem which (a) hasn't changed much lately, and (b) won't change much in the next 50 years anyhow, and © anything which has ever appeared in the Leica line is often -- yes, even with some difficulties -- available on the used market. DON'T TRY THAT WITH ANY DIGITAL STUFF. (Capital letters here DO mean shouting!).

[geddert]

That entirely depends on how much money you are able to play with (and you already have soem pretty expensive equipment, so either you don't have money because you spent it all already, or it isn't that big of an issue). This is inherently a personal issue, but i'll tell you the way i am thinking about it for myself.

 

I am waiting for digital to "get there" for my SLR work - and won't be buying any more film SLRs (in med or 35mm format) until i can get a digital camera i am happy with to replace either system (the EOS 1Ds may be it, but i need to wait and see what the street price is). I believe digital is close enough to being there, that it doesn't make sense to get any more film based "large" cameras (and a pro body Canon or Nikon 35mm camera are certainly in that camp).

 

However, the leica is another "beast" entirely (or rather a svelte princess). It is both timeless in design and in value (if you buy used). I can certainly see myself 10 years from now having digital cameras that far surpass the leica technically in each and every respect (possibly even ones that are quieter and less intimidating to people) - nevertheless I think i will own and use a leica from time to time because it feels right. Owning a Leica for me is much more of a heart decision than a head one. And following ones heart, although often foolish, isn't all that bad.

[patricks]

Aaron et al,

 

at this point I think it is a choice between what type of photography you want/need to accomplish. If you are a pro and you need the fast workflow - sure digital is the way to go. If you got a big investment in top of the line SLR lenses - by all means, buy a DSLR body.

 

I just got into Leica/rangefinder photography this very year, but I have little problem buying a Leica rangefinder body + lenses at this point of time. I highly suspect I will buy/use (another) digital camera within a forseeable future, but to have something like a Leica M6TTL as a travel companion through life is a true joy. No worries about recharging batteries, high altitude, downloading to a laptop/pc etc.

 

Net/net, if you know what you want and how you want to achieve it, no, investing in a Leica rangefinder system is not stupid/foolish. On the other hand, if you are a pro or just a happy weekend shooter who likes to play around with photoshop on weekends, or just want to takes LOTS of photos without careful composition/attention to detail - buy digital.

 

For me, my rangefinder forces me to think and therefor be a better photographer, even if I'm just a happy amateur shooter. :-)

[jay_.]

It depends on your finances. Buying Leica M equipment is much more risky than buying Nikon or Canon or even Leica R. The bodies might become worthless but the lenses will work on digital bodies...even the Leica R lenses can be adapted to Canon digital bodies. I'm planning at least at this writing to hang on to my M equipment but I won't be buying more until a digital M body or back is reality.

[joshroot]

Bob, your answer is probably the anti-digital "argument" that pisses me off the most. Which suprises me given your long history in the photographic industry.

<P>

Oh wah wah, you need to buy a brand new fast computer, wah wah. <br>That's crap. I shoot digital professionally and have for the past two years using a 5 year old 400mghz Pentium II for my digital workflow. I would guess that 90% of serious photographers today (especially the ones on photo.net) have at LEAST that much of a computer. Oh, printing is SO expensive. I get my snapshots printed at a Fuji Frontier lab for 39 cents each (same as if I had a film camera, only I don't pay for film processing and I know that every shot I have printed is a keeper). When I want a larger image, I can either have that same lab print me out a 5x7 or 8x10. Or I can go and do it myself on my sub $500 Epson printer. Which would be even cheaper if you found one of the many used models out there.

<P>

And I have no idea where you are getting your information about the EOS 1Ds. A EOS 1Ds Large/Fine JPEG file size is 4.1 MB (240 aprox shots on a 1gig card) and the RAW image format size is 11.4 MB (still 85 or so shots).

<P>

If you don't like digital, that's fine. But don't spread misinformation. Digital photography has issues and limitations like any other photographic medium. But try to know what they are before talking crap.

[frank_horn]

I know a fellow who is a magazine editor. The magazine appears each month on the newsstands. The covers and inside photos are spectacular and I had to ask what sort of cameras they use. He told me that in the beginning, they used MF for the important shots, such as the covers and full page shots. They used 35mm for details. They used Fuji 400 film. Lately, he says, they have been into digital. There was some initial resistance, but now, he says, he wouldn't use anything else. And, like I said, the photos are spectacular. I was sure it must have been all from LF & Hassys.

[douglas k.]

A couple of people have responded to my response, and there seems to be a misunderstanding: I never claimed that digital is now, nor will be in the near future, better and/or more cost efficient than film-based photography. What I did write is that I already have enough film cameras (which I plan to keep using), and rather than buy still more of them, I would prefer to save my money for the day when digital IS better and more cost efficient than film -- a day which will arrive, no matter how much some folks wish to believe otherwise.

 

Aaron already owns several systems, but only he can decide whether another is worthwhile.

[albert knapp md]

Aaron: The only thing that people regret is what they did not do.

Therefore, I would purchase the M6 or M7 with the fast lens(es)

and a) if you don't like it, sell it back ASAP at a minimal loss (do

not fill out the Passport forms until you are sure!) or b) if you

enjoy it, congratulations!!!

[cd thacker]

Sorry to hear you were talking crap, Bob - I agreed with you. I got rid of, some time ago, everything computer related (why did I go this route, when everyone else in the world is going the opposite way? Just contrarian, I guess. Actually, it was because I was getting ready to travel for an extended period - <I>and</I> because I'd had enough of computers for awhile, after having been frontal lobes deep in them for some years - <I>and</I> because I am averse to being stampeded). If I were to go digital, then - and I have thought of it - I'd have to make, certainly, a substantial investment (by anyone's reckoning) - in equipment that I'd be assured of having lose its value in short order. <P>

 

How long are you planning to live? Seventy years more? What if you die in six months? Why put off - for the sake of digital ephemera - <I>hypothetical</I>, at that - the pleasure of using Leica gear if you can afford to buy it now? According to recent speeches from Kodak's CEO, they have every intention of manufacturing film for the next several decades. You could be using that time to make great shots.<P>

 

Don't get me wrong - I understand the value of digital, and how, on its own terms, it must be gratifying. And if I could afford to use both, I would, probably. But if I appreciate and enjoy Leica, and it comes down to a choice between that and digital, I think it a mistake to choose the latter on the basis of some financial speculation.

[joshroot]

You know, you'll notice that I wasn't saying in any way that digital was "better" than film. I was just pointing out that Bob was wrong in what he said. You don't HAVE to have a fast computer or an expensive printer to have effective digital workflow. And that the EOS 1Ds doesn't put a 40 MB file onto a CF card/microdrive.

 

Don't read any more into it than that. Everyone here knows that I'm a big digital fan. But obviously I know the value of Leica (and film based cameras in general), otherwise I wouldn't put in so much time here.

[douglas k.]

P.S.: I think that, especially among people who discuss equipment extensively on forums like this, there is often counter-productive gear obsessiveness. If you really think film is still superior, then instead of buying your fourth or fifth camera, why not buy lots more film and processing? Presuming you already have pretty good gear, actually shooting more pics may be the best means to better photos.

[bobtodrick]

Douglas - now this I completely agree with!!

[george_b1]

Will someone please explain to me how a digital photo can be transcribed to something that can be shown in an ordinary slide projector, and, at the cost of 'chrome films and processing?

 

I'm not being a smart tail, but really asking for information. I do note that the projectors for digital run into the thousands of dollars, if you want projected images that compare with ordinary projected slides.

[jay_.]

George, there are film recorders which let you output digital images to film. You then have the film processed conventionally. My local camera store has one, and it seems to work well, but I have no authority to say how it compares to an original chrome. But George brings up a very good point. As someone who is "on the lecture circuit" I have run across one or two venues that have digital projection equipment. Most hotels and convention halls have Carousel projectors. If you use digital, you need your own projector(s)--plus backups--and that means transporting them via air. However a couple laptops and a couple digital projectors take up a lot less room than 15-20 carousel trays. I see more and more presenters using digital equipment.

[piang_ngok_chong]

Hello. This is the first time I am writing in this forum. I am an amateur,and therefore do not depend on photography for a living. I use both Leica M & R systems. The latter mostly for longer lenses. I am older and find the M focussing a little difficult for the longer lenses. I also have a Canon D30. My experience thus far... Having bought the Canon D30 hardly less than two years ago, I am a little peeved that this camera had depreciated so much, and will probably be accorded dinosaur status in another couple of years time. I should have realised that computers and digital equipment have a very short life span. But caught up in the euphoria of a new toy, I lost my rationality. It is not that the D30 is useless now. I still use it just as I am using a 600 Mhz computer to type this note. But the fact that Canon have come out now with a D60 and D1ds is certainly very annoying for me, at least. I have now decided to put off buying more digital gear until the evolution "stabilises", whatever that means and whenever that may be. However if I am a professional photographer and depend on photogarphy to put bread on the table, I will have no hesitation to use digital gear. I thoroughly using the Leica M. To hold one is sheer pleasure. To use one, once you get use to it (I am stll learning, don't we all?) is an enjoyment to be savoured. This experience is further enhanced by developing and printing the pictures yourself. While the digital print can be very good, I do not want to touch the computer any more, sicne I spend a good deal of my workign time with the computer next to me. Analog is sometimes very nice.

 

There was a recent photography exhibition in Singapore by a group of news photographers (working for the Straits Times). For their work, they all use Nikon digital camera. But on their Sunday weekends, they gathered together, making photographs with their Leicas, and old Nikons, Canons etc. The exhibition photographs were all taken with the humble film cameras.

 

Thank you for reading my humble contribution.

[ralph_barker]

George - most digital labs can output your digital images (of appropriate resolution) to a film recorder to produce slides for projection purposes.

 

As to Aaron's original question, my observation is that Leica M and digital are two distinctly different styles of photography. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, and questions of this nature tend to bring out strong emotional responses.

 

My experience from shooting both film (Leica M, Nikon, Hassy and large format) as well as digital (Nikon D1) is that I'll continue to shoot both mediums, but for different purposes. FWIW, I started with the Leica M after getting the Nikon D1. Notwithstanding the fact that I do a fair amount of digital work, I've built up a fairly nice Leica M kit, with two bodies and a nice array of lenses. I don't find the investment in M gear to be contradictory, as the digital work is sufficiently different to warrant the use of both mediums.

 

While I'm also a strong proponent of digital where it fits with the requirements of the task, I'd also point out that it is an area of quickly evolving technology. My $6,000 D1 is antiquated already, but the next generation (D1X) is not sufficiently improved for me to feel justified in reinvesting a similar amount. If I had to keep up with the digital Jones, however, that reinvestment would be required with each new generation of gear (about every 18 months). But, that's business.

 

In contrast, the M gear will continue to work just the way it does now, and will continue to produce top-level, film-based images for a long time. The M is a different answer to a different question.

[feli]

I work with digital images on a daily basis, but prefer analog for photography.

There are several reasons why:

 

a) I have more than enough 'digital' in my life. When I come home the last

thing I want to do is stare at another monitor.

 

b) I like the way film looks.

 

c) I like the way a traditional silver print looks.

 

d) I like razorsharp slides that are projected REALLY big, not shown on a

fuzzy 27 inch TV.

 

d) I like the craftmanship that is involved. I like mixing chemicals and the dark

art of exposing, developing and printing. I like to produce images by skill, not

trial and error or fixing everything in post.

 

e) I like the heft of my metal M and the frilly dials on my LTM. I like the finger

print of my 1937 Summar and razorsharp DR. I like the lack of shutterlag and

blinking lights. I hate plastic.

 

Someone will always be making film. Tri-X may end up costing $10 a roll, but

it will be around.

 

feli