What is the value to you in owning a Leica?

[atvrider]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have owned many different brands of digital camera's and I'm proud to say I now (finally) own a Leica. But it's not for the red dot! I previously purchased a pair of Leica binoculars and I think the quality (build and image quality) is superior to other brands.  I feel the same about the Q. The build and image quality  (the Leica look) is what gives great value to me. What is the value to you in being the proud owner of a Q?

[@McLeica]

For me the cameras are good but digital progresses so quickly that obsolescence is a real problem.

 

It's the lenses where Leica excels and I still think they are the best in the world so therefore they have a lot of value to me. If they happen to be mated to a Leica body then so be it. :-)

[HeinzX]

For me it is simply pleasure. The pleasure to make pictures with a Leica. And that is a feeling, which

is every time the same, when I use it. I own other cameras too, which some call "professional" cameras

for "serious" working with a lot of different lenses. And in the most cases I get very good results -

from the technical point of view - with them. But with none of them I have the same pleasure taking theit into my hands and making pictures with it. That is why I like my Leica so much, it is simply

pleasure - for me Leica is the essence of pleasure making photos.

[jlindstrom]

Purely emotional thing. I like the way Leica's operate & handle and enjoy using them. Also they look and feel nice. So while there are technically superior cameras available at cheaper prices, I don't enjoy them as much -> thus I use Leica.

 

From technical point of view, Leica also has very good optics. I like what I get out of the cameras.

 

//Juha

[marcg]

Groupies.

[alee]

I favor cameras with great low light sensors and fast autofocus lenses. Never wanted a Leica (ever) until they released one that could convincingly do both. The Leica Q is the flavor of choice... for now.

[marcg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I favor cameras with great low light sensors and fast autofocus lenses. Never wanted a Leica (ever) until they released one that could convincingly do both. The Leica Q is the flavor of choice... for now.

I agree with you that the Leica Q seems to tick those boxes. However, my understanding of the question is that it refers to the ownership of – generically – a Leica rather than the specific model

[Iduna]

I also work with other cameras like Canon 5DMKII,Olympus EM 5. With all of them I use Leica lenses. So, first of all it is the look which Leica lenses have. Now I can say, having the X1 and the Q the whole feeling of the work, focussingand framing is a unit fully dedicated to this process. The design and concept has its impact on the pictures and is a pure pleasure.

[Guest]

This is difficult to answer really, this is after all a forum devoted to living and breathing Leica stuff, so maybe all of us are somewhat slanted to the brand. 

For me however primarily it's the compact design and the marque's "stealth", at least it was that way but the cameras since going digital are "chunking up" more than I for one like.

 

The era of film cameras kept to the "stealth" mode, ( except perhaps for the M5! ). I've owned, still own, and have used professionally pretty much all of them. The film M's were extremely well constructed and seem to work with whatever was thrown their way, the digital M's are very well made too but apart from the Q which is a sort of side-step away from the M line, they are all putting on weight and I can't say that I like that.

 

Lenses, well we all come back to this don't we…..? 

Sure, without doubt Leica glass has always been exceptional, mechanically and optically, expensive but on the whole worth the premium.

However other lines made, and still make, really great lenses too. I've used Leica and Nikon cameras and glass since the mid'sixties, I still have some of those actual lenses and bodies today and quite honestly many times I couldn't tell the difference in terms of performance or build even when used on the same jobs.

Now I think that the lens manufacturing process has become so good that even really much cheaper lenses perform extremely well, close enough to those that cost many times more, and yes I am talking pro' as well as advanced amateur use. 

Maybe the cachet of owning Leica lenses blinds us sometime to the fact that there are, especially nowadays, lenses that are just as good and at times better that our Summiluxs, Summicrons, Noctoluxs and Elmars. I for one treasure using on my various M's the small "jewels" that Voigtlander make, they are compact, well made and frankly 90% of the time good enough even for pro' work.

Yes Leica lenses do have a "look" about them, but so do other makes of lenses too and I am not so sure that the majority of us can define a real difference, ( here comes the sh*t storm! ). In my film work I use lenses that cost several tens of thousands of dollars each and sometimes there up on a big screen I can see the difference between the mega expensive and the just ordinary expensive glass, but in photography I find it's really not so noticeable at all nowadays.

 

There's also the cost of owning a Leica now that has to be considered, especially so now that any digital camera has a far shorter "shelf life" than the film camera M's that went before. Would I still be using a model of digital Leica some forty years from now like I do with my film Leica's? For many reasons I don't think so. So is the high cost of a digital Leica really a worthwhile proposition to many photographers these days, pro' or not? This too applies to other camera makes I know, but Leica tends to be more expensive than most others.

For instance, I really do love the Q. I was lukewarm about it at first, but now we're inseparable despite my firmware moans, however side by side the results in main are not much better than my Panasonic GH4 with a cheapo Panasonic 14mm pancake lens mounted up front. I'm sure the same can be said about other similar less expensive cameras too.

 

But to return to the original question for me the reason I still own and use a Leica is it's design and build, the "comfort" of using it especially the M's. Ok as said I do have a problem with the cameras becoming bigger as Leica continues the digital march, and I wonder why that is, why they cannot make a digital M with the form of say an M6? For me that would be wonderful.

Lenses, yes, pretty much all of them have been terrific, but there's other's that come close in cost and are really good in many ways too. So in the end you pay your money and you take your choice, and because so many of us continue to see a value in the products, real or imagined, that's nothing but a good thing because it keeps Leica Camera in business!

[fastcar888]

I have owned Leica binoculars, lenses and cameras in the past, and found them to be impeccable. Due to craftsmanship, they can be handed down from one generation to the next. The Q has clearly exceeded my expectations; it continues to do so.

 

To me Leica equipment represents the pinnacle of quality, just as a Patek Phillippe watch.  Eventually, my grandchildren will own my Leica's and Patek's. 

[marcg]

Well they might be using your M3 - but will they be using your Q/T/x/M9/240/246/262/nnn?

[Robert M Poole]

History. History is the important bit for me. Both brand history and family history, my grandfather was a Leica shooter when he was a professional photographer and gave my Dad his Leica (he sold it as it was damaged). I've wanted to own one ever since. Brand history too, following in the footsteps of all the greats. The amazing pictures are a plus too

[Guest]

Hello Robert, while I do agree with you in regards to "history" we also know that it's the photographer that makes the amazing pictures not the camera. To believe that by owning the best will make you a great photographer rarely pans out.

Of course it helps a lot having gear that's well designed and made, but that's not enough. Your grandfather would probably have made good pictures with a Kodak Brownie while someone he'd handed his Leica to would turn in a rubbish shot.

​As an aside example many years ago I was booked to shoot a quick fashion spread for a British magazine. We, my assistant, the models and the clients all flew out together from Heathrow and a few hours later we landed in Djerba all set to go. The wardrobe and our personal bags all arrived just fine but unfortunately the camera gear, ( Nikon Fs and M2's ), and film-stock went somewhere else. We wasted a couple of days trying to find everything, airline promises that they'd be in on the next flight never panned out, and with one day left with no cameras or film the clock was ticking there was panic in the air.

Then the art director and I came up with the idea of shooting everything on disposable cameras we'd buy in various local shops, and that's exactly what we did. There was a lot of useless shots of course, but a surprising amount of real "keepers", a few going to full page when the issue came out, and one was even the cover shot.

The cameras and film had spent those days being shuttled back and forth to Scotland apparently, we eventually joined up with them back in London.

[Robert M Poole]

Hello Robert, while I do agree with you in regards to "history" we also know that it's the photographer that makes the amazing pictures not the camera. To believe that by owning the best will make you a great photographer rarely pans out.

Of course it helps a lot having gear that's well designed and made, but that's not enough. Your grandfather would probably have made good pictures with a Kodak Brownie while someone he'd handed his Leica to would turn in a rubbish shot.

​As an aside example many years ago I was booked to shoot a quick fashion spread for a British magazine. We, my assistant, the models and the clients all flew out together from Heathrow and a few hours later we landed in Djerba all set to go. The wardrobe and our personal bags all arrived just fine but unfortunately the camera gear, ( Nikon Fs and M2's ), and film-stock went somewhere else. We wasted a couple of days trying to find everything, airline promises that they'd be in on the next flight never panned out, and with one day left with no cameras or film the clock was ticking there was panic in the air.

Then the art director and I came up with the idea of shooting everything on disposable cameras we'd buy in various local shops, and that's exactly what we did. There was a lot of useless shots of course, but a surprising amount of real "keepers", a few going to full page when the issue came out, and one was even the cover shot.

The cameras and film had spent those days being shuttled back and forth to Scotland apparently, we eventually joined up with them back in London.

Wow, what a great story! I know that it's the six inches behind the camera which is most important! I don't know if it's the Leica lenses, sensor or just the fact that I've new toy but since I got my m9 I've been really happy with the results I've been getting compared to when I shot Nikon (I had no idea what I was doing) or Fuji.

[Joshua Lowe]

The compact size of the M bodies and glass make them ideal when traveling.

[ramosa]

I don't care that it's "Leica" per se. What I care about is having a camera that has a great mix of attributes: imagery, lens quality, function, haptics, size and weight, etc. I have consistently found this mix of attributes in Leica cameras (Ms from M6 through M9 and now Q). I have not found this mix in cameras from other companies. I stubbornly tried a few times with other brands, but have learned my lesson.

[lucerne]

I don't care that it's "Leica" per se. What I care about is having a camera that has a great mix of attributes: imagery, lens quality, function, haptics, size and weight, etc. I have consistently found this mix of attributes in Leica cameras (Ms from M6 through M9 and now Q). I have not found this mix in cameras from other companies. I stubbornly tried a few times with other brands, but have learned my lesson.

This is also the way I feel.  I don't think you can put a monetary value on owning a Leica, because ultimately there will be a cost. The real value when I started with an M9 was the simplification of the kit I needed to carry and the reduction in menu options which on other cameras just added to the chance of inappropriate settings.  I'm in Mumbai this week and have my M9 plus two lenses and my Q.   To be honest, the Q is even simpler and the M9 hasn't been used.  With the Q, its  Auto ISO, auto focus, and silent shutter, and I haven't missed a shot.   So, it's the mix of attributes that we users can enjoy, while doubters can sit on the sidelines and may never know what this model can achieve.  

I should add that I was worried about only having 28mm.    It hasn't been a problem for street photography.