Leica's advantage?

[bocaburger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I like mechanical watches and cameras because I have a deep fascination and appreciation for precision miniaturization, especially from a time where it was designed without computer input and largely made by hand. It's a complete other issue unrelated to utility, for which I prefer digital cameras and quartz watches.

[pico]

The Dalai Lama has a passion for repairing watches. I've always watched a Patek Phillipe, after the story I heard where the Indian Ambassador (not sure where to - England?) gave him his PP watch. The Dalai Lama took it to bits, and gave it back to His Excellency the ambassador in an envelope!

 

The Dali Lama's own account is different, but still quite interesting.

 

To return to the original topic, my particular view is similar to my mentor's who first let me use his M2. He used one camera, one lens in order to keep things simple, elemental. Although he was not in a position to comfortably afford the camera he wanted something he could depend upon. That was very appealing to me as well and I replaced my Petri 7 rangefinder with an M2 with that in mind. (I was wrong about the Petri's competence. It was a great little camera.)

 

So the Leica advantage then was its reliability, good feel, simplicity. Today I continue with Leicas because of habit, the way it fits my hands, and I appreciate well built, well considered design. The advantage remains.

 

I wouldn't mind having that Petri again. Here is one of my first pictures taken with the Petri.

[tomasis7]

pico, interesting story re Dalai Lama. Petri camera, thats cool!.

 

MarkP, well written! I agree that it is hard to compare since it is only time keeper. But the thought is so teasing that I'd have time keeper with stupid simple function worth more than WHOLE camera equipment. Ironically or not, I guess I see that as demonstration for minimalistic lifestyle especially when I have too much camera and still get money over to "bling" after cleaning up inventory It shows how rich Leica users really no matter how they speak of that they need 21, 24, 28, 35, 50, 75, 90, then Nocti, Lux, Elmar, some slow, some fast, some Zeiss, some CV, some other PS, Lomo. so it goes on. Saying that it takes better picture is not an excuse ( i know you mentioned word "technically") Still overall, it doesnt justify anything over that one does with.

To be honest, I was a bit surprised that some bashed the expensive watch brands because they are too expensive here in forum representing Leica, 35mm most expensive camera brand That is kinda amusing.

 

I had fun here and it was nice to see some watch or former enthusiasts here.

[CalArts 99]

If one wants to make parallels concerning Swiss mechanical watches and Leica, here's a totally different one altogether.

 

The Swiss watch industry is dominated by the Swatch Group Ltd and its subsidiaries. Swatch provides movements for all the watch companies under its subsidiary, ETA SA (and dba Valjoux.) They also own many of the well-known brand names including Breguet, Longines, Tissot, Tourbillon, and Blancpain.

 

In 2005 the Swiss government concluded that Swatch was a monopoly and had abused its market position. ETA SA was providing the industry with movements but had decided to stop selling anyone outside of the Swatch Group their mechanical ébauches and instead supply only fully assembled movements (ébauches are partially assembled allowing other watch companies to rework the movement and apply their own "in-house signature" to them and renaming them with their own name for the movement; this is common in the Swiss watch industry.)

 

Swatch complained that Asian counterfeiters were using their ébauches and that Swatch was losing control over their products. Anyway, long story short: the Swiss government made a settlement and allowed Swatch to end selling ébauches by the year 2008. After 2008 the Swatch movements were being sold to the watch companies only as fully assembled movements.

 

The point is that most all luxury brand watches contain a Swatch movement. The watches contain either a 2824-2, 2892.A2 or Valjoux 7750 movement made by Swatch. However, several of those luxury brands do indeed make their own in-house movements but only for their very expensive versions. But unless one is paying 8,500 or more Euro for a watch, then they are more than likely getting a Swatch movement in their watch.

 

The reality of the watch industry is that many high end watches are designed in-house but the guts (the movement) is made by a monopoly called Swatch Group Ltd. An analogy here is that the camera industry is similar in that the guts (the sensor) is often made by someone else. One could argue that Leica is sticking to their in-house sensor since they are contracting for proprietary sensors made by Truesense and now by CMOSIS. Most other camera companies use 'ébauches' or fully completed 'movements' (i.e., sensors) from Sony, etc.. So Leica is really more like the very expensive watches that do use in-house designed movements. The sensors are made for Leica and Leica only. And that no doubt adds quite a bit to the cost of a digital Leica.

[IkarusJohn]

Yes, interesting story about the FDR Patek Phillipe, Pico. I was referring to a different story told by the Dalai Lama - he alludes to it here:

"For example, I have always enjoyed repairing watches. But I can remember a number of occasions as a boy when, completely losing my patience with those tiny, intricate parts, I picked up the mechanism and smashed it down on the table. Of course, later I felt very sorry and ashamed of my behavior--especially when, as on one occasion, I had to return the watch to its owner in a condition worse than it was before!" [Dalai Lama, Ethics for the new millennium]

 

Anyway, he's a real character.

 

Mark, I have had a Seamaster Chronometer for the last 20 years. What's a pre-coxial? I take it mine (blue face, automatic, helium screw at 10 o'clock) is the coaxial model.

 

Cheers

John

[wutschel]

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

 

I think it's everything you told in the second, third and fouth paragraph. I experienced something similar. And: A Leica is a thing you have to work on to get really good quality. Even the JPEGs are not that good in color but if you try it in B/W, they're amazigly better than the stuff from others. In color, shoot DNG and convert it after you corrected the pictures.

This is the major drawback of them. On the other hand you get a lens quality better than somerwhere else. And that in a continiuos quality since at least the 1960s.

You can not quantify quality or advantages of Leica cameras. It's the way you're forced use it that allows you to make pictures which are different from others.

You probably will have to change your way to work.

And bear in mind that such a camera is more a kind of extra luxury when you do different things like these: It's good for street, travel, portrait, landscape and so on. And its major advantage is that it does not hide your face: The camera is not really seen because it is very discreet.

But it is normally the wrong tool for Sports Photography.

You can not quantify the quality of it in numbers. Believe me, a Summicron is good enough for much more megapixels than actual DSLRs have.

I never used Zeiss Lenses but I think that their quality level is a little bit lower compared to a Leica lens. And the colors they give are a little different.

 

Best regards

 

wutschel

[Unkei]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

pico, interesting story re Dalai Lama. Petri camera, thats cool!.

 

MarkP, well written! I agree that it is hard to compare since it is only time keeper. But the thought is so teasing that I'd have time keeper with stupid simple function worth more than WHOLE camera equipment. Ironically or not, I guess I see that as demonstration for minimalistic lifestyle especially when I have too much camera and still get money over to "bling" after cleaning up inventory It shows how rich Leica users really no matter how they speak of that they need 21, 24, 28, 35, 50, 75, 90, then Nocti, Lux, Elmar, some slow, some fast, some Zeiss, some CV, some other PS, Lomo. so it goes on. Saying that it takes better picture is not an excuse ( i know you mentioned word "technically") Still overall, it doesnt justify anything over that one does with.

To be honest, I was a bit surprised that some bashed the expensive watch brands because they are too expensive here in forum representing Leica, 35mm most expensive camera brand That is kinda amusing.

 

I had fun here and it was nice to see some watch or former enthusiasts here.

 

I've been reading this whole thread from beginning and am glad the OP is gone. To chime in on the expensive watch thoughts, I own about 24 watches, most in the $600 to $1000 range. I also own some $25 Dakota watches. They all keep time and all look different. I purchased an "expensive" Rolex out of 18 karat gold for my wife because she wanted one so badly. But that Rolex was not really expensive. Expensive watches start out at around $150,000 and go way up! Do they keep better time than a quartz Timex. Not really, but some people want them and can afford them. Each to their own!

I don't own a Leica yet, but will be purchasing one in about a month. I can hardly wait! At this stage of my life (retired on a fixed income), it is a big purchase. I intend to have it all the same!

Unkei

[zone7]

"Advantage" is in the mind of the photographer. For many, and myself, the Leica M9 rangefinder is an advantage for much of my photography. Try a Leica M before you buy (or buy one and resell it later with little or no loss). Once you are familiar with the Leica rangefinder method, its lenses, and the results, if you still need to ask what the "advantage" is, you won't understand if you are told. In short, don't judge from brochures, "tests," "reports" or various opinions. Find out for yourself. If the Leica "works" for you, then you will understand the "advantage." If it doesn't, no amount of forum responses will convince you. Stan Blevins

[run23]

Going back to sort of the original question post: I would advise anyone debating whether to get a Leica vs. camera x NOT to get a Leica. They are wildly over-priced and offer at best minimal image-quality advantages over cameras far less expensive.

 

But, if you are lusting after a Leica then I would strongly recommend getting one without hesitation. The image quality is great and they are a joy to shoot with if you want the rangefinder experience.

 

In other words, Leicas are a different breed than anything else out there, and if you've decided you want that breed, nothing else will do.

[dant]

I use Zeiss lenses. Some of them ooze grease from the back. These are the Japanese models. I wonder if the old school German Zeiss did the same.

 

As far as Leica? I love manual controls and ability to zone focus. The new school cam designs are taking controls away not giving us more control.

 

When I brought zone focus on Fuji rumors they told me to use the screen on the back of the camera or the EVF. Useless if you have to bring your cam up to your face to zone focus. Leica was a well thought out design. You can focus the lenses without looking at them if you know where the lens bumps translate to for distance scale.

[pico]

pico, interesting story re Dalai Lama. Petri camera, thats cool!

 

The truth is that I started with the Petri, and forty years later, went to the M7, then the M9, but I put them both away to use box cameras. I use a 6x12 Horseman with 35mm lens, a Plaubel Veriwide, my own hand-made super-wide 4x5, and a Linhof Super Technika. 35mm is dead to me except as a point-n-shoot snapshooter.

 

No disrespect intended. We grow older, and change.

[Adrian Lord]

The OP was a thinly disguised troll.

[sacramento]

This question is like another one: is it better to buy a car with automatic transmission or manual transmission? One has to test drive both to find one's preference. The manual transmission requires more driving skill and, in my opinion, is more fun.

I started with a Pentax SLR that took wonderful pictures. I also have a Nikon digital 70s with a terrific Nikon micro lens that does everything by itself. All I have to do is carry it, point it, and click. However, when I go for walks I always take the M9. I also prefer a manual transmission.

[NZDavid]

Less can indeed be more and new is not always better. Packing more and more whizzbang features into new technology does not always produce better results. It just adds complexity. Also, no matter how many shirts I own, I can only wear one at a time.

[pico]

Less can indeed be more and new is not always better.

 

 

Addressing only new Leica lenses - the newest lenses are, to me, so over corrected to achieve technical perfection that the images are ugly. The human eye is not perfect, nor is a sympathetic aesthetic oriented to a camera lens of the odd metric of perfection. Leica has met its goal of technical perfection and lost its concept of beauty.

 

 

 

Sent from my Etcha-sketch.

[bideford]

 

I wouldn't mind having that Petri again. Here is one of my first pictures taken with the Petri.

 

Pico - an outstanding image and one that resonates with where I now find myself in my own (albeit self inflicted) travails.

 

I have just returned to film with an M6 after a long journey that started with film and then (happily, I might add) immersed myself in digital SLR's over many years until somehow I ended up with a Leica M via an M8.2. How easy it is/was to be immersed in digital perfection becomes something that you can only really be aware of until you go back to the basics. I suspect that now we are seeking perfection that goes beyond the truth of the very scene upon which we wish to immortalize in digital (un)reality.

 

Your posted image with the Petri is a testament to the real skills of photography.

 

James

[swamiji]

Leica has met its goal of technical perfection and lost its concept of beauty.

 

Sent from my Etcha-sketch.

 

 

That is certainly an advantage to Leica, choice. Technical perfection, or dreamy soft focus, and everywhere in between.

 

Each photographer can choose to their own taste.

[Steve Ash]

In my point if view Leica' advantage is that I can enjoy both world film and digital. Both go hand in hand, The rangefinder in itself is the other bonus I could not stand to miss.

Steve

[Paulus]

The OP was a thinly disguised troll.

 

 

Does The Leica User Forum attract more trolls than other fora?

I wonder if someone knows and if so, can tell me why.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pico]

In my point if view Leica' advantage is that I can enjoy both world film and digital. Both go hand in hand

 

 

There is an idea for Leica! A pair of bodies, like an M240 and M7 with matching secondary serial numbers.

 

The best of both worlds.

 

 

 

Sent from my Etcha-sketch.