Why Buy Leica?

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The coating story is convoluted as it is intertwined with the working up to the 2nd world war -apart from the original Zeiss patent there was a Dutch company involved in the early experiments as well, the patents were "exported" to Germany in 1940. This was considered a military sensitive technology, so it is unclear who perfected the practical applications. The first coated Leica lenses were for military use only ( a condition for acquiring the technique??) The lenses for public use only appeared after the war.

 

The Zeiss coating before, and during a better part of WWII was so fragile that one could wipe it off with a soft cloth. Yah, I'd call that 'sensitive' technology to the extent that it was worthwhile for a fraction of the lens' lifetime. An old, non-coated lens kept in excellent condition (clean) has probably a better 'coating' as a result of natural oxidizing/tarnishing.

.

[Advertisement]

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

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Jaap,

 

Didn't Minolta get their first auto-focus designs from Olympus?

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[haroldp]

All very good points, Harold.

 

I didn't mean for this article to be about "Why Buy a Rangefinder" so much as why a Leica, specifically. That's going to be a subject for a different article.

 

While there are still some options in film camera's, for current production digital, RF is Leica (for now). Particularly for FF sensor size.

 

Regards .... H

[NZDavid]

A really good article, cogently argued without too much "fluff", that goes to the heart of what Leica is all about. A rarity these days -- I have bookmarked it. My only criticism is the infuriatingly small point size!

 

The author makes some good points, however there are always warning signs: Will Leica remain dedicated to the same philosophy? Will it be able to maintain the same high standards in future?

 

As it relates to Leica, they never set out to be a luxury brand and was only later thought of as one. If anything, Leica has just built cameras and lenses as they always have.

A luxury brand might just be name badge. It is not necessarily an indicator of quality, robustness, or reliability.

 

...As a backyard mechanic I use only the best professional grade tools, even though 'consumer' tools would probably last through my lifetime of use. They just 'feel' better. I do not consider this a luxury....

 

A very interesting point. I have Bosch green power tools and they are fine. Blue is pro. I think a defining characteristic of quality gear is that even base products are of exceptionally high standard. (This seems evident with various German brands, for example, Miele.) The difference is that pro gear has to withstand repeated daily use many times greater than amateur gear. Definitely having that built-in extra toughness factor is a source of confidence, even if you don't always need it.

 

The lens families are divided by speed, not quality. Unlike some manufacturers, there is no distinction between "regular" and "pro" lenses.

As above, quality throughout the line is critical. Imagine a line of "cheap" Leica lenses. Ugh.

 

Other manufacturers might have photographical equipment as only a small part of a much larger conglomeration of products.

Do smaller companies make better products because they concentrate just on one type of product? Many small companies do make quality stuff, but is company size the main factor? I am not so sure.

 

One thing we've always been fond of saying is that "A camera needs four controls - focus, aperture, shutter speed and release. Everything else is fluff.

Exactly. Concentration on the essentials.

[pico]

I got into Leicas, an M2, in 1965 when my mentor (still alive) used one. I found it easy to use because I came from a Petri 7s. Frankly, it was a huge burden on my budget and I bought it because of the influence of my mentor. However, it has since settled into my hands and for my eye in a habituated way. I have no idea what it would be like to start and continue in any other way. The Leica M is a habitual thing now. No rationale. In fact, it is harder to use today than ever before due to hand injury and declining eyesight. But the tactile, habitual handling is what keeps me keeping-on.

[Messsucherkamera]

A Leica, or any other camera, or any other device, can be treated as a luxury or as a tool: just as the good or bad use to which a gun is put does not depend on the gun itself. It is true, though, that Leica products are priced beyond the reach of many people who could use them productively.

 

I would argue that just because (new) Leica cameras and lenses are priced beyond the means of many people is not a legitimate reason to paint them as "luxury" items made only to cater to wealthy photographic dilettantes.

 

That having been said, I think of the M9 Titanium (or the Hermes edition M7 cameras) as luxury items while thinking of the M9 and M9-P (or plain black or chrome M7) as utilitarian tools for committed, serious photographers.

 

YMMV.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Jaap,

 

Didn't Minolta get their first auto-focus designs from Olympus?

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

That has been said. However, where did Olympus get theirs from? Somehow the technology permeated to Japan.

[jaapv]

The Zeiss coating before, and during a better part of WWII was so fragile that one could wipe it off with a soft cloth. Yah, I'd call that 'sensitive' technology to the extent that it was worthwhile for a fraction of the lens' lifetime. An old, non-coated lens kept in excellent condition (clean) has probably a better 'coating' as a result of natural oxidizing/tarnishing.

.

 

In 1939 van Leer started the optical industry "Oldelft" and their lenses in LTM mount had a coatIng that was superior to Zeiss', based on research by Delft Technical University. The same coating appeared on Leica lenses during the war. Holland was overrun by Germany in 1940.... When I studied at The TU Delft in the middle sixties there were still people around who worked there during the war and I was told that many technologies, not just optics, were "exported" by German scientists who visited the University.

Germany needed their rangefinders in naval vessels, field artillery and tanks, U-boot pericopes, aircraft bomb aiming devices, etc. to be as good and flare resistant as possible.

[Double Negative]

Some really great analysis and commentary on my article, thank all very much!

 

Obviously, I had a feeling that it might be a bit... Controversial. Clearly, everyone has their reason(s) for buying Leica and there's no right or wrong answer. I merely wanted to take a look at the photographical aspects of doing so.

 

I almost pointed out in the article that yes - not only German but even European products as a whole tend to be of a higher standard than your average American product. I'm German-American, and have spent a great deal of time abroad. I've had exposure to all things German and one thing I noticed (and loved) about German products is that their design and construction tend to be outstanding. As mentioned; Bosch, Miele, BMW/Mercedes, Pelikan, Leica, etc. But I thought it might be a bit too much to mention.

 

And of course, "buying the best" is rarely a bad choice, whatever it might be. Especially when you depend on it.

 

The historical/technical information and discussion is also very interesting. At some point, if it's not all covered elsewhere I'd love to capture some of that maybe for another article.