Is Leica really worth it?

[Terry Rogers]

It is my understanding that in general, Leica cameras and lenses are relatively expensive. I have no doubt they are well built and the lenses contain quality optics.

My question is this, is it really worth it? Is the IQ of a top quality rangefinder system with a couple lenses so much better that it justifies the hefty price tag? I know such a question is rather subjective (is it worth it), and different photographers have different needs. And what is good enough for one photographer is not good enough for another. But still, subjectively, is it really worth the added price?

I show my ignorance on the subject by merely asking the question. But I'm curious to hear from others on the topic, especially those who might own one, such as the leica M

 

[fotofool]

As you seem to understand, you are the only person who can answer the specific question you have asked.

If you are seriously curious then I suggest you sign up for a Leica Academie, get some hands on time with a Leica M, and find out...

http://us.leica-camera.com/World-of-Leica/Leica-Akademie/Leica-Akademie-Worldwide/Leica-Akademie-North-America

I did and now my 5DmII and collection of L lenses is growing rather bored. Others will obviously reach different conclusions.

 

[sanj]

Above all first ask yourself if you can live without AF and if you shoot mostly low ISO. Because Leica is manual focus only and not so great at high ISO.

Rest follows later.

 

[Berowne]

Is Zeiss-Otus worth it - instead of a Canon EF 50/1.4?

I used Leicaflex for many years (slides, always the same 90mm-Lens). I was never dissapointed about the results wich i saw only weeks later. You know in the moment when you push the button, that the picture is just as you want it. This experience is for me connected with Leica and Kodak. Now Kodak is dead and i do not want to shoot with Velvia.

I do not have the money for a digital Leica M. But if i had it, the decision would be between FF Canon/Nikon and Otus-Lenses or Leica M-System. The price would be rather the same. The question is obviously not whether it is worth or not. It is rather whether you feel good with a manual focus DSLR or a manual focus Rangefinder. Technically there are advantages in the case of DSLR-Otus Combination. The advantage of the Leica is, that it is small, silent and that it is a Rangefinder.

Greetings Andy

 

[Haydn1971]

Whilst I accept that some photography gear will provide a better image than Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax DSLR's, there will also be a niche market also for products such as Leica that to my thinking don't offer anything significantly more than the rest of the DSLR market runners, but fills a niche that some people buy into for what ever reason.

People look at me in amazement that I've spent £2k on a bit of glass, or £700 on an iPhone rather than a £400 Andriod, we shop a lot at Marks & Spencer's and Waitrose rather than Aldi, ASDA or Lidl, I've had BMW's and Audi's, all of which are my choices partly because I appreciate the small gains in quality but also because I've bought into the lifestyle hype - don't get fooled by the hype, Leica's a great bits of kit, but will they improve you photography ? That's very subjective and something only you will know once you try one ;-)

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Excluding Leica S Medium Format DSLR, The rangefinder cameras are unable to replace DSLR Canon or Nikon, or or perhaps mirrorless Sony.

There is not and can never be auto focus. ???
There is not and can never be zoom lenses. :
There is not and can never be macro lenses. :-[
There is not and can never be ultra wide-angle lenses. :-X
There is not and can never be fisheye lenses.
There is not and can never be super tele lenses.
There is not and can never be tilt shift lens. :'(
There is not and can never be Image Stabilizer Lens. :-*

For me, rangefinder cameras work well for a werent limited number of photos, not worth the investment.

You would have more benefits using Zeiss lenses Otus in their current DSLR.

EDIT: How could I forget ... Leica M is the only camera system currently to take pictures with the lens cap, and not notice anything wrong through the viewfinder.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I heard a great saying about the Leica M system...... "The two best days with Leica are the day you purchase it, and the day you sell it". The M lenses are great... the cameras seem to be plagued with problems. I sold all of my Leica M stuff about a year ago and haven't missed it. I do know a few other Leica shooters that have left M digital for Fuji. There's a thought out there that Leica has become a lifestyle luxury brand above all else... which is fine, they make money now.

The Leica S stuff is very good though and the lenses are remarkable. I've considered it for some time now. I'll be heading on a photography tour with a Phase One in March to see which I prefer.

 

[tron]

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8752612172/leica-m9-users-report-sensor-corrosion-issue

 

[Berowne]

I did thousands and thousands of slides over decades without AF, IS and automatic metering. Before i bought a Canon DSLR I never used a Zoom. With the Leica/Kodakchrome-combination i never had problems with gear or quality of the slides over years and years. I pushed the button, send the film to the Kodak-Lab and received perfect quality. Everything changed, when Kodak was dying.

And now? Within five years I changed Camera, Computer and Software. I had to learn PS, LR, care with RAW-Files, bought TB-Harddrives, care about color-adjustment and printer and so on and so on. As I know, people who changed to digital Leica M had serious technical problems with nearly everthing in the camera wich was not mechanical: sensor, SD-cards, battery, shutter ... I would not invest so much money and have so much problems with a hobby wich was making me happy for many years without electronics.

In summary: analog photography with Leica was easy and the results pretty good. Used camers were affordable the quality of the lenses realy good. Digital photography made everthing only more difficult (if you do not need to shoot 3000 pics per hour of tiny birds with 800mm lenses free hand ...). Digital photography with Leica M seems to be a mess.

Greetings Andy

 

[Rocky]

It is my understanding that in general, Leica cameras and lenses are relatively expensive. I have no doubt they are well built and the lenses contain quality optics.

My question is this, is it really worth it? Is the IQ of a top quality rangefinder system with a couple lenses so much better that it justifies the hefty price tag? I know such a question is rather subjective (is it worth it), and different photographers have different needs. And what is good enough for one photographer is not good enough for another. But still, subjectively, is it really worth the added price?

I show my ignorance on the subject by merely asking the question. But I'm curious to hear from others on the topic, especially those who might own one, such as the leica M

Are you asking about the M as a film camera? or as M as a digital camera???

 

[ScottyP]

It is my understanding that in general, Leica cameras and lenses are relatively expensive. I have no doubt they are well built and the lenses contain quality optics.

My question is this, is it really worth it? Is the IQ of a top quality rangefinder system with a couple lenses so much better that it justifies the hefty price tag? I know such a question is rather subjective (is it worth it), and different photographers have different needs. And what is good enough for one photographer is not good enough for another. But still, subjectively, is it really worth the added price?

I show my ignorance on the subject by merely asking the question. But I'm curious to hear from others on the topic, especially those who might own one, such as the leica M

No one who has spent the 3x to 5x premium for Leica equipment has ever, in the history of the universe, said it was not worth it.
Now, while some of this could be attributed to high levels of customer satisfaction, there is no way that number could be 100% positive unless something else was at work. Kind of like how elections in Iran and North Korea are always 100% in favor of the incumbent leader but it seems fishy. One possibility is that, in some cases, people who have shelled out so much on the Leica item find the possibility it was a waste of money to be so horrifying that it is literally unthinkable.

 

[ScottyP]

Excluding Leica S Medium Format DSLR, The rangefinder cameras are unable to replace DSLR Canon or Nikon, or or perhaps mirrorless Sony.

There is not and can never be auto focus. ???
There is not and can never be zoom lenses. :
There is not and can never be macro lenses. :-[
There is not and can never be ultra wide-angle lenses. :-X
There is not and can never be fisheye lenses.
There is not and can never be super tele lenses.
There is not and can never be tilt shift lens. :'(
There is not and can never be Image Stabilizer Lens. :-*

For me, rangefinder cameras work well for a werent limited number of photos, not worth the investment.

You would have more benefits using Zeiss lenses Otus in their current DSLR.

EDIT: How could I forget ... Leica M is the only camera system currently to take pictures with the lens cap, and not notice anything wrong through the viewfinder.

In this photo You could pass for Eric Clapton. (Lol). Can you grind a metal rangefinder over the strings and play Leica slide guitar?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Excluding Leica S Medium Format DSLR, The rangefinder cameras are unable to replace DSLR Canon or Nikon, or or perhaps mirrorless Sony.

There is not and can never be auto focus. ???
There is not and can never be zoom lenses. :
There is not and can never be macro lenses. :-[
There is not and can never be ultra wide-angle lenses. :-X
There is not and can never be fisheye lenses.
There is not and can never be super tele lenses.
There is not and can never be tilt shift lens. :'(
There is not and can never be Image Stabilizer Lens. :-*

For me, rangefinder cameras work well for a werent limited number of photos, not worth the investment.

You would have more benefits using Zeiss lenses Otus in their current DSLR.

EDIT: How could I forget ... Leica M is the only camera system currently to take pictures with the lens cap, and not notice anything wrong through the viewfinder.

In this photo You could pass for Eric Clapton. (Lol). Can you grind a metal rangefinder over the strings and play Leica slide guitar?

Yes, this is Sir Eric Clapton. He is among those people who can spend a lot on an object, not for performance, but the plaque written LEICA.

In addition to it, Victoria Beckham also fell on the viewfinder trap that does NOT show the image captured by the lens.

 

[arcanej]

Is it worth it in terms of the cost - probably not.

I have the Monochrom and simply love the camera and Leica glass really is top-notch. (Although, Zeiss' latest 35mm M-mount is actually better than Leica's higher priced 35mm Summilux.) Shooting with a range finder really isn't that difficult and I've even used it to photograph a dance show while I recorded video with my 5D3 (see below). I do, however, often have a magnifier attached to aid in focusing.

I love how range finders force me to slow down and think about composition instead of running and gunning. The Monochrom doesn't have a bayer filter and produces super detailed images. When I do studio shots and edit in Photoshop I am amazed how when I zoom in even to pixel level I still see detail whereas images from my 5D3 go to mush well before pixel level.

My big gripes with the Monochrom are the horrible LCD on the back and the fact the buffer fills up fast and takes forever to clear. There is apparently an issue with the Monochrom and M9 in terms of sensor corrosion, but Leica has offered a free lifetime sensor replacement.

Dr. Cornel West by Evan's Pix, on Flickr

aerialist by Evan's Pix, on Flickr

modern dance by Evan's Pix, on Flickr

 

[arcanej]

There's a thought out there that Leica has become a lifestyle luxury brand above all else... which is fine, they make money now.

I wouldn't be surprised. Private equity shop Blackstone bought a large stake in Leica a few years ago and they will look to maximize their return on investment.

 

[tcmatthews]

Many of the buyers for the Sony A7 and A7r seemed more interested in using their old Leica rangefinder glass than adapting any LSR lenses. They could not afford a new digital Leica M camera. So a A7 with an adapter is a no-brainer for lenses that would normally just sit in their closet. Or only come out when they wanted to shoot film.

Is Leica better than an A7 shooting Leica glass? I do not know on normal to telephoto. But Leica digital does much better with wide angle lenses. From everything that I have heard.

 

[Hillsilly]

I assume that the OP means the Leica M's, but there is another option if someone is curious about Leicas and wants to see if they are "worth it" - the Leica R's. Used film bodies are very affordable and many lenses can fit onto Canon bodies with an adapter. The R system also has the usual fisheyes, wide angle, super telephotos etc. The lenses are also good to use on mirrorless cameras.

But to answer the query in general, Leica M's are great for travel, street shooting, portraits and landscapes. They are fairly well made, reasonably compact, portable cameras and many of the lenses are at least equal to Canon L lenses in relation to image quality. If the cameras and lenses were selling for less than half of what they currently sell for, there probably wouldn't be much debate. But selling a lower volume, niche product, I can understand why Leica portrays itself as a luxury brand and aims to keep their price high. Though, to me, I think you pay a little too much for the branding, mystique and mythology. But then, Leica did "invent" photography...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-NzDnlOgIw

 

[Berowne]

The lenses are also good to use on mirrorless cameras.

No, they are not. If it is about tele-lenses you can adapt them and use them also with mirrorless cameras. But not fast (in particular wide angel) lenses with short exit pupil distance. They will suffer reduced preformance because of the mostly thick sensor stacks used in mirroless cameras.

The Leica M is perhaps also affected, its sensor stack is 0.8mm thick. This means that you can not use M-Lenses wich are designed for Film-Cameras without loss of IQ. This is of course also true for Nikon and Canon lenses, but they are not so expensive and in most cases no longer used, because cheap new lenses are available.

Greetings Andy

 

[Hillsilly]

Thanks, surprised to hear that's the case given the R system has a longer flange distance than even Canon EF lenses (47mm vs 44mm). Adapted lenses also suffer from the inherent problems associated with using an adapter and the hit to IQ, but you do hear of people using them successfully.

 

[Berowne]

Hallo Hillsilly,

Have look at this:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/sensor-stack-thickness-when-does-it-matter

Rogers mesurements and data predict, that the Leica-M 28mm f/2.8 ASPH Elmarit (EPD= 29mm) will work badly on the Sony A7 (Sensor Stack 2mm). This is a realy good lens. The mirrorless Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 has a Sensor Stack that is 4mm thick. This should ruin the IQ of most lenses wich are not designed for such a camera.

In most cases nobody knows the exit pupil distances of the Leica lenses. So it is not predictable whether a particular lens will have a good performance with a special camera. But fast wide-angle Leica-M Lenses will most probably not work with mirrorless cameras without loss of IQ. In the case of Tele-Lenses it is unimportant.

Greetings Andy