Leica's advantage?

[Guest Kasper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’m new on this forum, and I do have a question, if you allow me. In a certain threat I read someone who said that there is hardly a difference to be seen in prints that come from Leica Lenses or from Carl Zeiss. Than I started to read what Steve Huff, Puts and Ken Rockwell are saying about Zeiss, and now I wonder if Leica is indeed so much better. I also read a press release from Zeiss saying that this company is going to make AF lenses for compact cameras. As I understand Leica will not have AF in the next years, if it is possible anyway in the M.

A photographer won’t care about slightly differences in IQ, I think. He wants to work with modern possibilities that quarantee him simply the picture. AF, ( very) high ISO, and process speed are sometimes a must, surely because other cameras can do it. FF compact cameras will come with it in the next year (s), I guess.

I bought a second hand M camera with a summicron 50. It disappointed me on the things I mentioned. I think that solidity is less important in a market where every two or three years new developments do appear. So what is in fact the big advantage of Leica?

 

Thanks, Kasper.

[earleygallery]

Welcome to the Leica forum!

 

Not sure that you'll get a friendly welcome with that question though, Leica users are very defensive people!!

 

What do you think the advantage is?

 

I use Leica and other lenses and cameras. None of them hold me back in any way. Leica isn't always 'best' for me, sometimes it is.

 

However, generally speaking, Leica lenses perform better than many others wide open, if you want low available light use or limited depth of field without compromising your overall image quality too much.

 

If you prefer to use a film or digital 35mm format rangefinder camera then Leica are about the only choice (compared to other film rangefinders I think most would agree a Leica is better made and better to use). It's your only option for digital.

 

It all comes down to what you prefer. Maybe Leica isn't 'best' for you. For others it's all they'll want to use and 'best' for them.

Edited September 20, 2012 by earleygallery

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[bybrett]

Kasper

 

The simple answer is - you keep on doing what you are doing, and we will keep on doing what we are doing.

 

In the end you only have to believe yourself. If you are inspired then follow that inspiration. Ask yourself what are you inspired by? Work out what you can do, not what you cannot. The picture is guaranteed by the mind, the eye and the hand, not by the AF or the lens, or even the camera. However, if all your inspiration is coming from Leica, that is the big advantage of Leica.

[edmond_terakopian]

Very wise words from Brett there. If the Leica M and lens you bought disappointed you, I'd recommend you go to a workshop or two and take lots of pictures. Learn how to use your camera. Over my career I've owned and used the best lenses by Angenieux, Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Voigtlander. By far the best I've used has been Leica.

A rangefinder isn't the correct tool for some types of work; wildlife, sports and so on need long lenses; lenses over 300mm and AF definitely helps. Other types of lenses like macro, medium telephoto and possibly fisheye, are now covered with the new Leica M. You pick the right tool for the right job.

One thing is for certain; you have a great image making tool; work at it :-)

 

Edmond

[chalkdust]

Kasper there seem to be several points in your question, which is a valid question. I want to highlight this part of your question:

 

"A photographer won’t care about slightly differences in IQ, I think. He wants to work with modern possibilities that quarantee him simply the picture. AF, ( very) high ISO, and process speed are sometimes a must, surely because other cameras can do it."

 

I agree with you that slight differences in IQ are seldom very important. And I also would like to have equipment that can simply guarantee me the picture I want. However, I find the M system to work well for me. I used auto focus cameras for years until I could no longer tolerate shutter lag, and failure to focus quickly on the element I want in focus. For my style of photography, manual, range-finder focus along with manual aperture control are faster and more comfortable to me than any autofocus system I have used.

[Paul J]

Welcome to the forum Kasper. It's a very reasonable question that we have all asked at some point.

 

Firstly there is a quick and simple answer. The lenses. Not only more sharp and what I consider more rich tonality and colour but they look different. They have characteristics which make them unique. When you have "something to say" in your photos, a message, a particular characteristic like that is very valuable. It's like using a different sort of paint brush to convey a different message. Different lenses have different characteristics or renderings. You can pick and choose depending on what you want to say. I've been shooting with an M9 since February and I've not felt as addicted to any camera like this before. It won't tell you what to take a photo of but what you do take it really can, in my opinion, make it look better.

 

Then there's rangefinder focusing which for me is so much better than the tunnel vision of a dSLR. There is no finder block out and you get to see your photo happening rather than guess what you got. You can see what's happening outside of the focal length frames which helps composition a great deal and then there is what the Leica M is unmatched by any Canon or Nikon, simplicity. A light tight box, a lens and the bare essentials. It's called Bauhaus design. Pure and simple. It's unaffected by marketing gimmicks which are a total distraction to your pictures. It leaves you free to focus on the picture entirely.

 

From a work flow point of view the files from my M9 are ready to go straight out of camera. I spent my life crunching Canon files. Too much time was wasted in post and the colours when pushed around looked fake. Washy, flat colour, mushy tones. If you converted them to black and white they look terrible. It takes a lot of pushing around in curves and masks and adjustment layers to separate tones enough to get a decent image. but by that stage you've introduced artefacts and degraded the original image. The Leica is a different story. You click Black and white and it looks deliciously rich in tone straight away.

 

From a speed point of view, I can focus my lens with the focusing scale, shoot at f11 and I don't even have to focus. I don't even have to wait for the camera to focus and often misfocus which is what my Canons often did. My Canons would say they were focussed but when I reviewed the images they were often soft. They were unfocussed and the the lenses were just soft. Also Canon and Nikons comparatively have anti-alaising filters and that waxy, hazy, mushy look that Canons and Nikons have really bugged the bajeebies out of me. You leave that behind with the Leica. Sure youface a bit more Moire and the like but that can be cleared up in an instant with lightroom.

 

I took a gamble buying a Leica system because I'd not tried it and there was no option to rent one. When I viewed the pictures for the first time I gasped and yelped out loud. The pictures were amazing. To give you an idea I have a Phase One P65+ and a Blad that I used to shoot with for everything professionally. Now the Phase One is only used for work that is bigger than double page magazine spread and I'm very confident to use it much bigger if necessary. It's really that good and it has simplified my life work and workflow times over. For me there really is no other choice!

Edited September 20, 2012 by Paul J

[Guest Kasper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you for all the answers so far. Don't take me wrong, but today I was in a shop for photography, where I asked the salesman more or less the same thing. He told me this: te M system is very much limited. They say for example that it is a street camera, but that is half the truth. Try to shoot a person walking in your direction with a 90 mm. You use f 2,0 or 2,8 because you want to isolate him. The change that you will get a sharp picture with a M is a matter of luck. Moving subjects with wider lenses are also difficult. A DSLR will do the job perfectly. High ISO? A DSLR half the money of a Leica blows it away. If you need speed, it is the same thing. Buy a M and you will miss a lot of pictures.

In his opinion Leica will have serious troubles if Sony or others will bring a full frame compact camera with interchangeable lenses, certainly if they are from Zeiss. And he thinks that will happen. Buy a DSLR, he advised me, or wait for that new compact. Or buy more Leica if static objects are your goal and you want the best lenses. But I can't deliver them. Some customers are already waiting for more than half a year.

Well, considering all this, if it is true, and I wander again: what is Leica's advantage for all that money?

 

Greetings, Kasper.

[jaapv]

Silly buggers.(Pardon my French...) I have no problem shooting dogs running towards me using a 90....

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited September 21, 2012 by jaapv

[kokoshawnuff]

Typically salesmen (not just those of the photographic nature) don't have a clue what theyre talking about...they often spew opinions and rumors as fact. Don't listen to salesmen, don't listen to bloggers, only to yourself; as information attained by shooting your camera with your eyes and talents is the only thing that will either convince you or not of the advantage a Leica has over anything else.

[andyedward]

It was the superb image quality of an elmarit-r 100/2,8 which brought me to leica

[jaapv]

And a salesman, unless you are in a really good shop like for instance Robert White, may try to sell you the camera that will give them the highest commision.

[otto.f]

For you there seems no advantage. You have all the arguments in hand to save a lot of money.

Leica is for people who have built up an experience with it and a rapport with their equipment comparable with their native speaking and /or are fascinated by the brand for undefinable and mostly irrational reasons. Except that the system is still the most compact - not the least heavy though.

Some Zeiss lenses are in terms of MTF equally good as Leica's, most Zeiss lenses are not that 'good' however. The choice between Zeiss and Leica is a matter of character, generally speaking Leica's have more bite at full apertures and the best Zeiss lenses have a more smooth impression and a special color rendition.

Another point is that I guess that the majority of Leica-addicts have started with a pre-owned set, often parallel with a Nikon or Canon fun bag, came to grip with the M's ergonomy and gradually expanded the domains they covered with their Leica

Edited September 21, 2012 by otto.f

[bybrett]

Kasper

 

The simple answer is - you keep on doing what you are doing, and we will keep on doing what we are doing.

 

In the end you only have to believe yourself. If you are inspired then follow that inspiration. Ask yourself what are you inspired by? Work out what you can do, not what you cannot. The picture is guaranteed by the mind, the eye and the hand, not by the AF or the lens, or even the camera. However, if all your inspiration is coming from Leica, that is the big advantage of Leica.

 

When I was the proud owner of a Zenit-E I reckoned that most of the images which inspired me were shot on a Leica. So was it a good camera? Or did the camera inspire the pursuit of good photography? Or did the good photographers naturally use a Leica? Probably all of these. So to gain those advantages I bought a Leica (M).

[Lindolfi]

Kasper, my advice: don't try to get the "truth" out of a salesman or out of forum members. Photography is not only about specs. It is also highly personal: your brains, your eyes, your hands, your experience, artistic gamma and feeling for technology are all different from the man or woman who speaks to you. So it would be a coincidence that the same camera would be the most suitable for both of you.

 

Perhaps it is best to take a close look at how you create images with a camera.

[gvaliquette]

... Don't take me wrong, but today I was in a shop for photography, where I asked the salesman more or less the same thing. He told me this: .....

 

He never used a Leica and did not know what he was talking about!!! A "salesman" is just that. He / she does not need to know what (s)he is talking about, and such knowledge generally just hurts sales! I know, I had a summer job as a photo salesman 35 years ago, ... And I had and used a Contarex at the time. my colleagues did not know s..t!

 

if you want/lust for a Leica, get one and ignore the salespeople. if you believe in salespeople, Leica probably is not for you!

Edited September 21, 2012 by gvaliquette

[Paulus]

I’m new on this forum, and I do have a question, if you allow me. In a certain threat I read someone who said that there is hardly a difference to be seen in prints that come from Leica Lenses or from Carl Zeiss. Than I started to read what Steve Huff, Puts and Ken Rockwell are saying about Zeiss, and now I wonder if Leica is indeed so much better. I also read a press release from Zeiss saying that this company is going to make AF lenses for compact cameras. As I understand Leica will not have AF in the next years, if it is possible anyway in the M.

A photographer won’t care about slightly differences in IQ, I think. He wants to work with modern possibilities that quarantee him simply the picture. AF, ( very) high ISO, and process speed are sometimes a must, surely because other cameras can do it. FF compact cameras will come with it in the next year (s), I guess.

I bought a second hand M camera with a summicron 50. It disappointed me on the things I mentioned. I think that solidity is less important in a market where every two or three years new developments do appear. So what is in fact the big advantage of Leica?

 

Thanks, Kasper.

 

 

What camera did you buy?

[1JB]

Honestly, in my opinion you can't justify the price of the Leica lenses by looking at the printed results from a Zeiss compared to a Leica lens. The rangefinder certainly has some limitations as compared to many dslrs which also cost a lot less. When I was shooting sports, wildlife and macro I was heavily into Canon S lenses and the MDK body lineup. I have many large prints around my house from that set up that I'm proud of. Once I got out of that type of photography and wanted to carry a camera all day for daily use, on short trips and long trips the size, weight and simplicity of the M9 with the very small Leica lenses and their outstanding quality was my choice.

 

The M9 and Leica lenses have brought me full circle to the type of photography I enjoyed when I started 40 years ago. I studied the lenses and picked Leica because I knew it would meet my expectations. I grew tired of all of the menus, the selection of focus points and lugging the dslr gear around. I didn't start out wanting a rangefinder but the Leica M was the only system that met my criteria two years ago. Now I love the rangefinder approach and I've actually spent less than I did on the dslr gear. I've got one small body, two lenses and a flash. I rarely use the flash. I can carry the camera and lenses all day long. I take the camera with me now. in post processing I can beat the living day lights out of the files it produces with no noise.

 

Is the extra cost worth it terms of the difference between a print from my old dslr, no.

For the joy it's brought back to me personally from the moment I take the photo through the moment that I print it it's worth every penny.

[kdriceman]

Thank you for all the answers so far. Don't take me wrong, but today I was in a shop for photography, where I asked the salesman more or less the same thing. He told me this: te M system is very much limited. They say for example that it is a street camera, but that is half the truth. Try to shoot a person walking in your direction with a 90 mm. You use f 2,0 or 2,8 because you want to isolate him. The change that you will get a sharp picture with a M is a matter of luck. Moving subjects with wider lenses are also difficult. A DSLR will do the job perfectly. High ISO? A DSLR half the money of a Leica blows it away. If you need speed, it is the same thing. Buy a M and you will miss a lot of pictures.

In his opinion Leica will have serious troubles if Sony or others will bring a full frame compact camera with interchangeable lenses, certainly if they are from Zeiss. And he thinks that will happen. Buy a DSLR, he advised me, or wait for that new compact. Or buy more Leica if static objects are your goal and you want the best lenses. But I can't deliver them. Some customers are already waiting for more than half a year.

Well, considering all this, if it is true, and I wander again: what is Leica's advantage for all that money?

 

Greetings, Kasper.

 

I'm curious about what kind of photography you would like to do. It seems as though this is the first question to address. Do you really want to do street photography with a DSLR and a 90 mm auto-focus lens? Perhaps a Sony NEX with a Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 auto focus lens? I have this combo in addition to my M9 and I definitely prefer the M9 for street photography and fine art photography (ok, ok... 'fine' art might be a stretch for much of what I do). Why? I know exactly what I am focus-ed on and where and the results are consistent and predictable. The NEX is a great little camera, but sometimes it gives me nasty little surprises on the focus it chooses.

 

While my Canon DSLR auto-focus is damn impressive (it can keep tracking using a 300mm lens.. the driver of an oncoming vehicle on a bumpy road at closing velocity of 60mph +), I do not wish to lug that thing around the streets to try to catch candid shots of people. My NEX on the other hand is small and light and has auto focus, but for moving objects, it is not what I would call impressive and I can't rely on it to focus on exactly what and where I want the focus point especially on a crowded street

 

I use these 3 cameras almost all the time: DSLR for 90% of my shots (long lens, sports, wildlife); My M9 for 90% of my outings (i.e. I use it most times during the week, but the DSLR for many more shots); the NEX for family, video, snapshots or just quick carry-around. I thought I would use my Leica lenses more on the NEX, but I just prefer the simplicity and manual focus of the M9.

[otto.f]

Most salesmen love to sell what they have in store

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tibicen]

Kasper,

 

I owned an array of DSLR-Flagships out there, so believe me, shooting with a rangefinder means also seeing the world in another way than through a mirror...for me certainly it gave a boost of inspiration. I never looked back...

 

A talented photographer is able to produce stunning images with (almost) any camera, but if you don't want to be distracted or outright governed by the dratted thing, you choose a Leica M. The real magic lies in its simplicity. It's an honest tool. If you can't live with it limitations, go for something else.

 

Then there is something like "drawing" of lenses. You have a vast amount to choose from in the M-System included vintage lenses. IQ of course no issue either.

 

I'm totally tired of ravings like "an M is for static objects", that's complete BS! Like Jaap already pointed out, a skillful photographer can track any moving object with his M.

 

Perhaps see this article: "Why buy Leica" on La Vida Leica

In the end you have to ask yourself: What do I want/need, what kind of images do I desire?

The choice of the tool then is yours...

 

Best Regards,

Claus