• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Whats so special about a Leica?

They say that the lenses are incredibly high quality. It's also a bit of a status symbol, and the closest one can get to a rangefinder feel in a digital camera.
 
What is a rangefinder feel? I still haven't been able to find a conclusive answer on what the whole rangefinger business is about.
 
For SLRs, the light path goes through the lens, bounces off a mirror, and into the optical viewfinder. When you click the shutter release, the mirror flips up, the shutter opens to expose the recording medium, and the light goes straight through the lens onto it.

For rangefinders, the light path goes through the lens onto the shutter. When you click the shutter release, the shutter opens exposing the recording medium. The optical viewfinder in a rangefinder has a separate light path, so you don't only see what the lens sees, you typically see more. There are frame lines in the viewfinder to tell you approximately how much of your field of view the lens can capture. Thus, people using rangefinders have the luxury of composing their shot while maintaining a view of the entire scene beyond what the lens can see. Since there is no mirror, the shutter release produces very little noise and vibration.
 
I don't really get it either... but I'd say it's mostly for rich collectors or the fashion-conscious. Status symbol. No one would pay that much because they "need" its features for their basic day to day sustenance. Purely a luxury item.

Now, the lenses can be a different story. I've seen some pics taken by Leica lenses before, and some are stunning compared to top of the line Canon/Nikon lenses. But I still don't think their price justifies their performance. For the photographer with lots of expendable income.
 
i love the industrial design, myself.

at least up until the digital model the build quality, fit, and finish was unparalleled. the lens quality was second to none (still is). problem is, the M3 was basically the perfect rangefinder, and other than metering having been tortuously added (and no where near as accurate as a modern electronic SLR), the changes to the M line through the years have been very very minor.


and yes, the special editions lately (safari edition, the hermes edition when leica was owned by louis vuitton, and now this white one stealing a page from pentax) have further reinforced the "dentist's toy" reputation.


edit: this is to be released in japan, that explains all
 
I wanted to like RF's, but only had an Oly 35 SP and Canonet GLIII 17. I did not like it much. My friend has a Zeiss Ikon and swears by it. MF in near darkness for him worked extremely well. He offered to let me borrow his Bessa R3A+40/1.4, but I declined, it's a lot of money if I like it, haha. That and the whole caveat of it being film =)
 
Its the awesomeness of the camera, and of the lens, the build quality is second to none, and if utilized by a photographer, the pictures are incredible! If used by me - just so so. If you don't get it, you probably weren't meant to. Not being elitist or anything, but this is a pretty tight niche. I'm trying to like rangefinders too - I have a Minolta Hi-matic 7s - and I can't really take good pictures as I struggle with focus and the parallax. Still trying to learn.

Its sort of a audiophile/videophile thing. It's what makes people spend thousands on a vacuum tube amp, or 8x what a consumer version costs - because it has that "miller diode" or some such.

People get the same way over Hasselblad too. Mcintosh for the audio world (well less now than years ago), etc.


I'd say it's mostly for rich collectors or the fashion-conscious. Status symbol. No one would pay that much because they "need" its features for their basic day to day sustenance. Purely a luxury item.
Click to expand...

Nope - serious photographers use Leica's all day long. It's an art form ya know. Sometimes only the finest hair from an apalloosa horse's ass that was raised only on red wheat berries covered in honey that was made from the nectar of the Bronze Hibiscus in the Hartz mountains of Germany will do.




Here is an example



And another



And more example



I don't know how to make any pictures that come close. I'm simply not good enough and may never be, I think you really gotta be born a photographer, (like a programmer) - and while you(I) can make some amazing images, only an artist makes art. Most of the above is in composition though - not the camera that allows it to happen. A camera is only a tool, and obviously some folks think that it brings a ton of value to the table because they sell very well.

 
Originally posted by: bobdole369
Its the awesomeness of the camera, and of the lens, the build quality is second to none, and if utilized by a photographer, the pictures are incredible! If used by me - just so so. If you don't get it, you probably weren't meant to. Not being elitist or anything, but this is a pretty tight niche. I'm trying to like rangefinders too - I have a Minolta Hi-matic 7s - and I can't really take good pictures as I struggle with focus and the parallax. Still trying to learn.

Its sort of a audiophile/videophile thing. It's what makes people spend thousands on a vacuum tube amp, or 8x what a consumer version costs - because it has that "miller diode" or some such.

People get the same way over Hasselblad too. Mcintosh for the audio world (well less now than years ago), etc.


I'd say it's mostly for rich collectors or the fashion-conscious. Status symbol. No one would pay that much because they "need" its features for their basic day to day sustenance. Purely a luxury item.
Click to expand...

Nope - serious photographers use Leica's all day long. It's an art form ya know. Sometimes only the finest hair from an apalloosa horse's ass that was raised only on red wheat berries covered in honey that was made from the nectar of the Bronze Hibiscus in the Hartz mountains of Germany will do.




Here is an example



And another



And more example



I don't know how to make any pictures that come close. I'm simply not good enough and may never be, I think you really gotta be born a photographer, (like a programmer) - and while you(I) can make some amazing images, only an artist makes art. Most of the above is in composition though - not the camera that allows it to happen. A camera is only a tool, and obviously some folks think that it brings a ton of value to the table because they sell very well.
Click to expand...

Do you have to be a member of Flickr to see those photos at a decent size? All I can see are small pics, and so they look like they could have been taken with a P&S. 🙁
 
Whats the big deal?
Click to expand...
It's a technology that predates SLR's, and apparently some stupid rich people will pay a fortune for it just because they can. Doesn't mean it's better in any way.
 
Originally posted by: bobdole369
A camera is only a tool, and obviously some folks think that it brings a ton of value to the table because they sell very well.
Click to expand...

using a rangefinder may be more transparent than the technical proficiency of an SLR. and the large rangefinder window may actually help with composition between 35 and 105 mm, despite the slight perspective difference. certainly the fact that leicas are manual focus forces you to slow down. another factor is that leica tends to optimize its lenses for contrast more than sheer sharpness (which canon adopted), while zeiss contax tend to optimize for sharpness (which nikon adopted).



as for sell very well, i'm not so certain about that. without the panasonic licensing deal leica may have been dead by now.
 
Whats the big deal? I can't seem to find anything online that details why they are so wonderful.
Click to expand...

The only thing really unique about Leica digital is they lack an AA filter, which combined with their above average optics does deliver aethestically sharper images without using as much USM. I wish Canon and Nikon would do the same and offer AA / anti-moire' correction as an option post capture.

Is it worth the price? Nope. A Sigma SD-14 is a helluva lot cheaper.

Otherwise, Leica = mostly snob appeal. Classic film rangefinders have a particular niche' that makes them very usefull for low impact street shooting because of their quiet handling, minimalist controls, and almost non-existant shutter shake. In that respect, I give older film Leicas a thumbs up even though the cost was too high.

I worked for two Metro newspapers in the eary 90's when I was in college. *None* of the staff used Leica's, and their B&W Canon/Nikon work was superior to *any* Leica portfolio I've ever seen. While the classic rangefinder is usefull for snaps, it's simply not good as a full time workhorse tool.

I don't know how to make any pictures that come close.
Click to expand...

I have absolutley no clue as to what you find remarkable about those posted images. This is yet anyother psychosis of the Leica mind-set in which Leica shooters tend to post hum-drum images and claim they are better than they are because they are using an over-priced digital camera that's a couple years behind the competition.

Here's a group on Flickr that has some nice ones:
Click to expand...

Nothing there better than a Rebel 300 either.

Biggest way to get a classic film Leica bigot to shut-up and go away mumbling is the same arguement I've been using for years. Both Fuji and Mamiya made very popular 6x7 rangefinders which utterly destroy the best Leica film images by virtue of the superiority of medium format over 35mm. I don't care what type of German lens you use on 35mm - 6x7 format will spank it badly. Before I went digital I was exclusively 6x7 and always had a laugh at the attitudes of Leica shooters.

IMHO - Henry Cartier Bresson, the typical 'jesus' of Leica shooters, is the most over-rated photographer of all time.
 
I wouldn't buy a Leica digital right now. However, I would love to have an old M6 body and a 35mm lens. They're great for times when you need a discreet, compact, quiet camera. Build quality/feel and lens quality is unparalleled.
 
Why wouldn't you buy a leica digital Right now? their M6 is pretty much the same as a M8, except M8 uses somewhat a APS-H sensor, in a pretty compact body (range finder). in fact, the M6 is probably identical in size to the M8. The only thing the M8 is different than the M6 is the digital sensor, and the electronics that come with it. It's still a MANUAL focus camera, with MANUAL exposure settings.
 
I'm no expert, but the camp seems divided over the digital vs. film thing still. Lots of "Leica = film and I'll never change" fogeys. I've never had the pleasure of owning a Leica anything, so I wouldn't know how the digital quality is vs. film.
 
Originally posted by: finbarqs
Why wouldn't you buy a leica digital Right now? their M6 is pretty much the same as a M8, except M8 uses somewhat a APS-H sensor, in a pretty compact body (range finder). in fact, the M6 is probably identical in size to the M8. The only thing the M8 is different than the M6 is the digital sensor, and the electronics that come with it. It's still a MANUAL focus camera, with MANUAL exposure settings.
Click to expand...

Because I don't trust Leica's electronics over Canon's or Nikon's.
 
I don't believe you need a Leica to appreciate film quality. An old Nikon or Canon with a decent lens will give you great results too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top