Are Leica still a viable camera option?

[Guest Posto 6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Being rather upset at the summary dumping by Leica on their R-system clients following their abandonment of this range, I am starting to seriously question whether it would be wise (or adviseable) to make further long-term investments in Leica equipment, in no small part due to the possible long-term instability of the Company and their product ranges.

 

My question, which is only slightly rhetorical, therefore is, should Leica equipment still be considered a viable option capable of keeping up with the latest digital standards, or should it be consigned to the hobby and historical interest category?

 

Before anyone gets too upset, please consider- if you had been continuously assured by Leica that R-system upgrades and future were assured, in light of recent developoments, would you invest (again) serious money in the M or S systems? Please think and discuss from a business, not an emotional, point of view.

[giordano]

Photographic technology and markets are changing so fast now that long term (by which I guess you are talking ten years or more) investment in photographic equipment is something that a business-minded photographer should IMHO avoid - regardless of the name of the manufacturer.

[Advertisement]

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

[rick_dykstra]

I will discuss from a business and an emotional view.

 

Years ago when I decided I would buy into a camera system with something of a big bang (to get the best deal) I initially tossed up between MF and 35mm. 35mm won because of the better suitability to long lens nature work. Then it was a Leica, Nikon, Canon toss up. I concluded that I was not doing this as a full time professional and so allowed my heart to have a significant vote. I chose Leica and have been very happy with the IQ, the handling, the fantastic R8 tactile approach, the backwards compatibility, the build quality. I also have Canons and Nikons and they leave me cold.

 

Yes, I'm very disappointed with the R situation. Yes, it has rattled my confidence in Leica. It will make me think many times before buying Leica again.

[farnz]

Personally I look at the way the company is backed by the independently wealthy Dr Andreas Kaufmann, who is passionate about the company, and I continue to purchase Leica products without concern.

 

You use the word "invest" as though you expect to make a financial return on Leica products; I would personally never *expect* to profit from Leica equipment (that's not why I buy it) but if profit was to be made from any photographic equipment I would expect it to be from Leica equipment.

 

Pete.

[stuny]

I for one plan to stay with Leica unless the doors close for good. My experiences with the company, the people and the equipment have brought me a great deal of pleasure.

Edited August 12, 2009 by stuny

[redbaron]

Oh, boo hoo...

[twittle]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's difficult to give any unqualified answer to this partially rhetorical question. If we're talking digital only, I'd have a difficult time spending even three grand (let alone five or six) on any body, be it Leica, Nikon, Canon, etc. because it will be obsolete in the relatively near future. On the other hand, if we include film in the equation, I'd consider Leica to be a viable option even if their doors had closed ten years ago; their technology hasn't changed much since the 50s, equipment is easily repaired by any of a number of reputable people, and the optics quality speaks for itself even on the older lenses.

[Shootist]

Never bought any R equipment, never liked SLR's after having my first M3 in 1972. Yes I've owned a couple of SLR's over the years but always came back to the M. Will not buy any S equipment and will wait to see what M cameras come down the line. For now I am happy with the M8 and will stay happy with it until it fails.

When that does happen I will then take a long hard look at what Leica is offering in the M line. But hopefully my M8 will continue to work for many year and maybe Zeiss will come out with a M mount digital RF camera.

I have all the lenses I need for the M system and really have no interest in long glass.

[storybrown]

I'm an SLR type, hard as I've tried to have the rangefinder bug bite. I like the R bodies I have (and those I've handled but don't have) and the R glass -- very much. As long as someone is making film, the R system will be completely viable, as far as I'm concerned, and I look forward to getting more lenses (tho for my use, I prolly have enough), and maybe a DMR if they're any about. My Canon A-1 still works just fine, as do my SL & SL2s - fix the light seals here & there, etc - and my R4sP & R8 are my workhorses. They'll outlive me (just like my IIIf will, which I don't yet much use).

 

I suppose Leica made the right decision (perhaps a little belatedly) about the R vs the M -http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011102323.html - but it seems that they might have kept one R body in production as an entry-level place holder for current & future film SLR devotees (say, an R-E or R6 type), as well as a couple of lenses every couple of years, while focusing primarily on all their other offerings. Many would have followed along, even sans an R10, although that's doubtless what many (older users as distinct from potential new users) wanted & counted on, of course.

 

Like everyone else I am dismayed by how the termination of the R system was handled, but in the end I think there will be some (Leica) resolution for the legacy R lenses: they are too fine to be a dead end (comparable M lenses have nothing on them, so far as I can tell, nevermind the telefotos) and merely jettisoning so many long-time users, devotees, & enthusiasts is almost always bad business, which Leica surely recognizes -- it's one of their characteristics. If they don't, the company won't be viable even if the S2 is modestly successful, which it may well be and I hope it is.

[ASpes]

I sympathise with your disappointment, but current times are not compatible with costly revolutions, and the S2 and the new M are already stretching the "safe bet" concept for Leica.

 

My personal answer is that it's still worthwhile to invest in the Leica brand, if they have what suits your needs and pockets. My only "trick" is to buy what I need now or in a very close future, as buying for 1-2 year away is just cutting on the options I will have by then.

In any case whatever I can buy today, in 5 year it will be either perfectly working and absolutely obsolete.

 

Guess that Leica will still be around when I'll need help with a spoon, not that I will care much about it by then ...

[hamey]

When I first moved into Leica back in 1973 I was so proud of the results I was getting on my slides that using anything else was unthinkable, in 2009 THAT OPINION HASN'T CHANGED.

 

But I will not purchass a Leica Digital Camera, as I stongly feel that over expensive digicams are not worth it, check out their value after a couple of years.

You can buy some excellent Digicams for only 1/3 the price of Leicas so why bother.

 

Check out Leica's Digital History, most of their models are obsolete withen months, the last 3 years they have produced the M8, M8-2 and this year M9, now the digiheads are already barking for the M10, the DMR didn't last more then a year, (not Leica's fault) their new flagship the S2 how long!

I am not blaming Leica, it's these Electronic campanies that have taken over the photografic industry.

And there is big money to be made as they consider the Digicam as a money pit.

 

 

So as long as my beloved slide film is available I will stick with it and only use the real Leicas.

 

And YES Leica are still a viable option in Lenses and Film camaras.

 

Ken.

Edited August 12, 2009 by hamey

[dicko101]

I don't think there is such thing as the 'long term' with digital because of what changes and how rapidly it does. Leica is a safe bet, but it is not as if they are going to bring out a 24mp 51 point AF SLR camera with 3d projection anytime soon. With Leica you know it's going to be hastening slowly.

[Finnkare]

Personally, I don't have interest in digital cameras and I agree that they are very bad investments. But I don't see why Leica is worse than the others - their mechanical quality is most likely better, so if one has to change a sensor or whatever part, it's wiser with a Leica than with a Canikon. And the life of digital bodies are so short anyway that Leica doesn't seem to be disappearing before the bodies die. Moreover, there seems to be a couple of "takers" of the rangefinder market even if Leica seized to be.

 

What comes to film cameras, Leica seems to be the safest bet. Canikons are concentrating 100% on volume, and volume is in digital. Did they already stop making film bodies? Anyway, Leica's plentyful new and used equipment and unsurpassed servicability and backward compatibility are huge benefits.

[SJP]

Considering the current quality of the M8 pictures at ISO 640 and below, I see no reason whatsoever to assume that it will be 'redundant' in the next 5 years. The newer sensors achive high ISO/low noise primarily via noise reduction algorithms that pretty much destroy the subtleties of an image (skin, textiles etc. the "plastic look"). I prefer the noisier M8 files. Better postprocessing algorithms for ISO 1250 and 2500 would be useful but only for a small fraction of the pictures I like to take.

 

The rate of development in sensor technology is slowing down. The current generation of sensors are not limited by the number of pixels (enough is enough). The high ISO noise is dominated by the number of photons that reach the sensor i.e. by physical limits.

 

So if you are fixated on getting the best of the best then everything is redundant after 2 years. If you are happy with a camera that is (at least) as good as film then the service life is mainly limited by electronic failure & unavailability of spare parts. Say 10-20 years. Make it 10 years to be conservative => approx. 400$ per year to take say 10.000 pictures, i.e. $0.04 per picture. Digital M's are cheap.

[garyp]

As long as I can buy [decent] film and have my R8 and SL bodies serviced, they are still viable.

After that, no idea.

I definitely think they should have handled the R's demise in a better way than what we were subjected to.

[biglouis]

What do you mean 'long term investment?' I would have thought a Leica M film camera is the only long term investment left in camera technology. If you mean as a working tool then I'd expect most professionals to write down the value of their equipment over, say a 3-5 year period. (Personally, if I were a professional I'd try to get it written off in 3 years and hope the tax man doesn't know anything about the longevity of Leica equipment!).

 

Ermm... when have Leica cameras ever 'kept up with the latest technology'? Perhaps their lenses but not their cameras, well not since about the 1950s. Even the M8 by anyone's yardstick was not exactly on the cutting edge when it hit the shelves.

 

Leica is about the lens. Looking at the results that some members are getting mounting their R glass on Nikon and Canon bodies - if I were an R user that's the route I'd go down. The platform is a commodity but the lens is the true differentiator and a good lens can last a lifetime.

 

If someone bought out a lower cost DRF which accepted M glass tomorrow I'd seriously think about that as my upgrade path in the future.

 

LouisB

[mooky]

Yes.

 

As long as you can buy film, or can use one of the digital bodies, it really only matters if the equipment/image you record gives you the look and the results you want.

 

I think of investment as meaning will the equipment 'hold-up' to the use I give it long enough to justify the results I want for the cost I can pay for it. I recently bought another SL2mot and Motor - so far, if I need to, it can be repaired and keep giving the results I want - a good investment.