Why is Leica better?

[Lonescapes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica is poor value for money. No, the premium is not worth it. But--so what?

 

When I switched to Leica I did it because I could finally afford it, and did not want to continue contributing to the destructive environment practices and poor labor supply conditions that the Japanese manufacturers are entangled with.

 

I'm not a fan of the prices, but I can't fault Leica. They know their target demographic, they know what those people are able to pay, and they are charging what they need to charge to make money with a niche product.

 

As for performance: Digital systems are so advanced now that I think 99 percent of the people who grumble about the limitations of Leicas probably don't even need the improvements that they're asking for.

 

I've said it before: I deliver my work to professional standards, and there isn't a single photo I've taken that couldn't have been made to work with a little skill and a Canon 450D or something on that level.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Lonescapes

[Advertisement]

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

[helged]

Leica is poor value for money. No, the premium is not worth it. But--so what?

 

When I switched to Leica I did it because I could finally afford it, and did not want to continue contributing to the destructive environment practices and poor labor supply conditions that the Japanese manufacturers are entangled with.

 

I'm not a fan of the prices, but I can't fault Leica. They know their target demographic, they know what those people are able to pay, and they are charging what they need to charge to make money with a niche product.

 

As for performance: Digital systems are so advanced now that I think 99 percent of the people who grumble about the limitations of Leicas probably don't even need the improvements that they're asking for.

 

I've said it before: I deliver my work to professional standards, and there isn't a single photo I've taken that couldn't have been made to work with a little skill and a Canon 450D or something on that level.

 

 

+1. My view exactly.

 

Plus: The second-hand prices for Leica equip are quite high, particularly for lenses. The value of digital bodies is not that bad either. And I am sure that Leica gear lasts, in general, for quite some time compared to cheaper alternatives. This is good; once an item is produced, it should last.

 

In addition, I have the feeling of holding an instrument when I have a Leica in my hand. The plastic feeling is simply not there (although the SL- and S-lens shades are on the plastic side, I will say). Although mis-calibraded rangefinder bodies and/or lenses - and other technical/optical issues - are a nightmare, knowing that adjustments/fixes can be done and you are left with a perfectly working and calibrated system is very satisfying (although the waiting time to get something fixed can be too long).

 

I fully understand that the above are very personal preferences. No problem. We all make choices all the time (what food to buy, where to live, how to travel, how to live, etc.). I have decided not to have a car (but being a member of an ideal car sharing organisation, so no problem). I try to look at environmental and ethical aspects, not only the price, when I buy food, clothes, etc. I don't claim that Leica is superior to other manufacturers regarding environmental and ethical aspects, but a major part of the production takes place in Germany (and Portugal). Yes, this has a value for me that I I am willing to pay for.

[mmradman]

I think you misunderstand my question.. I mean no offense. I love the Leica IQ. It is merely a question to elicit a response based on the thought process and and value proposition of equipment with a premium charged vs a substitute available at a much less cost.

 

Why is leica better than the competition....is it factual, based on evidence to superiority, or are you rationalizing your investment?

 

I am sorry you take this personally.

You raise valid question why to choose premium brand like the Leica over the next system which is perfectly suited for taking excellent pictures.

 

Common response on these forums, providing it is polite one, is that Leica provide RF or rangefinder, aka M system experience which is unique to Leica today.  Other brands like Canon and Nikon provide much more comprehensive selection of photographic equipment from small size sensors up to full frame with seemingly limitless lens choices, comprehensive flash systems, loads of other accessories, good service support [mostly], etc.    

 

For me it boils down to optics, and to SL601 camera which is unique as it provides excellent compatibility with legacy R lenses, current M lenses plus own AF lenses. 

 

I was happy Nikon user until i made (expensive) experiment and bolted APO Elmarit R 180mm on my Nikon D700 - Leitax lens mount conversion.  Two things worked for me; image feel and quality were very different from Nikon (Nikon was and still is capable of producing amazing pictures) and i enjoyed manual focus experience.  Since that opening experiment i managed to acquire M system consisting of MP-film and M246 cameras with 21-90mm M lenses and SL601  with 19-280mm R lenses.  Other unique Leica offering is dedicated full frame B&W camera, i enjoy my photography with M246 very much, my SL601 has replaced, now sold, M240 and earlier M9.

 

Reading post #21 remained me of never liking seeing recycle sign on the barrels of Nikon AF lenses - 10 years.  These were commodity products made to be replaced by next model few years down the line, no different than Leica digital cameras really, so it reinforced my liking of solid manual focus lenses like M and R. 

Edited February 8, 2018 by mmradman

[Chaemono]

Hi everyone.

 

We all know that Leica is a luxury brand.

...

 

Of course, we do. It’s for people in private jets who drink champagne and smell nice. And most of us got into Leica because we thought it would help us get girls...or guys. But it turns out most folks out there don’t know the Leica brand. I even wear T-shirts when I walk around to take pictures that say “My other camera is a Sony” (which it actually is) and folks just pass by without giving me any consideration. On the plus side, it makes street photography easier. Edited February 8, 2018 by Chaemono

[Paulus]

I'm actually relieved, that I could buy my first Leica ( M6 ) in a time, that we did not have internet like nowadays. The decision making was more personal and did not lean on others except for a few friends or teacher. I just felt really good to own a Leica. I still kept my Nikon. Couldn't miss that one. Love doesn't always exclude..

[scott kirkpatrick]

Of course, we do. It’s for people in private jets who drink champagne and smell nice. And most of us got into Leica because we thought it would help us get girls...or guys. But it turns out most folks out there don’t know the Leica brand. I even wear T-shirts when I walk around to take pictures that say “My other camera is a Sony” (which it actually is) and folks just pass by without giving me any consideration. On the plus side, it makes street photography easier.

The T-shirt sounds relevant -- post a picture!

 

But on that other stuff, even tongue-in-cheek, should be reserved for the Veblen threads that are specially provided on this forum for the people who want to debate straps, leather cases, and custom watches.  

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Still,  a trophy wife  or a Bentley is far  more effective as a status symbol. I should try one, or both... Although my wife and bank manager might object.

[hhn360]

There is a passage in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance which reads, 

 

"The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you.  There isn't any other test.  If the machine produces tranquility it's right.  If it disturbs you, it's wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed."  - Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values

 

By most measurable, quantitative metrics, the Leica system technologically lags behind competitors (sensor size vs. medium format, resolution, image stabilization, eye autofocus, creative lighting system to name the ones that are most significant for my photography).  So I would not say Leica is necessarily better than their competitors in a strict sense in many aspects.  But you don't need others' validation on your choice of Leica for your cameras in order to feel good about your decision.  I believe if the tools allow you to produce the images faithfully to your vision and the camera motivates you to pick it up and use it, that is the only real test it needs to pass.

 

I am very lucky and own many camera systems and utilize all of them (Leica, Phase One, Nikon, Hasselblad, and Sony).  I pick the tool that meets the vision and needs for whatever shoot I am doing, and also one that I would enjoy using in that situation. 

 

- Hien 

[pico]

There is a passage in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance which reads, 

 

"The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you.  There isn't any other test.  If the machine produces tranquility it's right.  If it disturbs you, it's wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed."  - Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values

 

From the day his book came out, Pirsig has been on my mind. We lived an alley apart, he was a student at the U of Chicago which was a little part of my freelance photography life. By necessity I rode motorcycle I built from parts, ground-up, for simplicity.  He rode a Honda Super Hawk (Phoo by David Brill, National Geographic) for the same reason, but store bought. . Read up on his once traveling friend, John on the BMW. It's all you need to know.

Edited February 8, 2018 by pico

[Wojtek]

I appreciate the passion everyone has towards loyalty of their investment . I get it. Again, and in the simplest terms, what does Leica offer over the competition, which commands a premium in price. Very simple...emotion aside.

 

I am really searching for those who have thought and researched this. There is very limited research from what I can see. For instance, a very interesting video on Luminiance Landscape with a Phase One engineer discussing the new Tri-Chromagix sensor was enlightening. I thought a lot about wha he said, and how does that translate to the engineering behind the Leica sensor develoment and thesis.

 

Has anyone researched the quantitative and qualitative value that Leica provides. Like mentioned, I’m lookig to leverage from others research

 

 

I'm afraid you still didn't get the answer you're looking for? 

I'm sorry but I find it super hard to find a single not emotion-based reason here...

 

I'm not saying emotional-based reasons aren't important

 

- The way a camera makes you feel inspired when you hold it

- The fact that just looking at it makes you want to take it with you, go out and create art (not many people say it about Sony)

- Feeling of being somehow connected to the history of photography

- Awareness that you support the true brand which cares, the underdog in a world full of numbers based soulless technology corporations

- How it provokes you to take world changing pictures instead of hotel room selfies which this new polaroid provokes you to

- World around disappears, freedom comes, simplicity, the essence

 

These are all super important reasons. "How I like my camera" and "how excited I am to use it" could probably be two of the most important "features" a camera could ever have. Probably more important than fast AF, great sensor, low light capabilities and ability to work well with flash... but they still are emotion-based, and not concrete, measurable facts which I think Dsauro is asking us for. One could admit, that it was a choice based on emotional reasons (most of them are, we simply hesitate to acknowledge it, even to ourselves) or really try to find some non-emotional reasons while trying not to bend reality too much in the process. 

[jaapv]

Of course, we do. It’s for people in private jets who drink champagne and smell nice. And most of us got into Leica because we thought it would help us get girls...or guys. But it turns out most folks out there don’t know the Leica brand. I even wear T-shirts when I walk around to take pictures that say “My other camera is a Sony” (which it actually is) and folks just pass by without giving me any consideration. On the plus side, it makes street photography easier.

I have T-shirts with an M6 on it saying: "It's just a camera"

 

I found this site.  There must be a T-shirt for every type of LUF member there

 

https://www.spreadshirt.com.au/leica+t-shirts

[sillbeers15]

Someone once said to me: ‘It is difficult to fault a Toyota Camry technically, but no one aspires to own one’

 

Rationally, I know as a fact and agree that Canon & Nikon make great high end camera gears based on:

AF technology;

Customised setting;

Choices of lenses;

3rd party strobes support;

Technical support;

Value for money.

 

However I feel good using my Leica.

[Lonescapes]

I used to work in a recording studio. We had a $99 thrift store bought guitar that was made in Japan during the era when very good knock-offs fenders had been produced there. We put some nice guitar pickups in it, but even if you factor those in, it was a $300 guitar

 

We used to play a game with the bands we recorded where we'd invite them to play their guitar through our amps (so they couldn't recognize their own sound), and a handful of our guitars, then pick their favorite tone out of the resulting recordings. The winner the overwhelming amount of the time, even when the guitarists had brought in $5000+ guitars, was the Japanese knockoff.

 

The surprising part was how depressed this made the guitarists. They had really bought into the delusion that they had obtained a better instrument for more money, and moreover that they were only able to do so because of their excellent, discriminating taste, which allowed them to know--better than anyone else--where their money was best spent.

 

In many parts of life, you can pay more money to get something you like more. But 'better' is something else.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Lonescapes

[Paulus]

From the day his book came out, Pirsig has been on my mind. We lived an alley apart, he was a student at the U of Chicago which was a little part of my freelance photography life. By necessity I rode motorcycle I built from parts, ground-up, for simplicity.  He rode a Honda Super Hawk (Phoo by David Brill, National Geographic) for the same reason, but store bought. . Read up on his once traveling friend, John on the BMW. It's all you need to know.

 

Read " Zen.." when I was 24. Influenced my life a great deal. Gave it to my brother, neither a thinker nor reader.He hardly read any books at all except comics, but was/is a motorcycle fanatic repairing its own and those of friends.  He talked about the book in a enlighted way for weeks, astonishing his friends and relatives with his suddenly outspoken profound thoughts.  

[Paulus]

I'm afraid you still didn't get the answer you're looking for? 

I'm sorry but I find it super hard to find a single not emotion-based reason here...

 

I'm not saying emotional-based reasons aren't important

 

- The way a camera makes you feel inspired when you hold it

- The fact that just looking at it makes you want to take it with you, go out and create art (not many people say it about Sony)

- Feeling of being somehow connected to the history of photography

- Awareness that you support the true brand which cares, the underdog in a world full of numbers based soulless technology corporations

- How it provokes you to take world changing pictures instead of hotel room selfies which this new polaroid provokes you to

- World around disappears, freedom comes, simplicity, the essence

 

These are all super important reasons. "How I like my camera" and "how excited I am to use it" could probably be two of the most important "features" a camera could ever have. Probably more important than fast AF, great sensor, low light capabilities and ability to work well with flash... but they still are emotion-based, and not concrete, measurable facts which I think Dsauro is asking us for. One could admit, that it was a choice based on emotional reasons (most of them are, we simply hesitate to acknowledge it, even to ourselves) or really try to find some non-emotional reasons while trying not to bend reality too much in the process. 

 

to complement what you say one can read this :

 

http://www.imx.nl/photo/

[jonoslack]

I think you misunderstand my question.. I mean no offense. I love the Leica IQ. It is merely a question to elicit a response based on the thought process and and value proposition of equipment with a premium charged vs a substitute available at a much less cost.

Why is leica better than the competition....is it factual, based on evidence to superiority, or are you rationalizing your investment?

I am sorry you take this personally.

Hi There

I’ll do my best.

 

As a bit of background I’ve recently been doing a ‘canter’ around some other systems, and in the last 6 months I’ve bought and used a Fuji X-T2, Nikon D850, Olympus OMD-EM1ii, Panasonic G9, Nikon D810, because I wanted to get a handle on things. The only camera I’ve kept is the Panasonic G9, and that’s because it’s great for wildlife with the PL 100-400 (200-800 equiv). The others all went for one reason or another. I should say at this point that I would have been willing to swap systems if I found something that was really better.

 

Of course, it’s easy to rationalise my M10 bodies and lenses (because I like to use a rangefinder and the lenses are great). The SL is rather a different proposition. But having used the other systems I think I can tell you why.

 

1. The EVF - it really is a killer, and surely what you see is the most significant aspect of using any camera.

 

2. The controls and menus - everything you NEED and nothing else - I understand every entry in the menu system and the controls fall to hand and seem instinctive.

 

3. Those zoom lenses - they’re just great - no compromise in image quality, they come up with the goods over and over.

 

4. The new summicron primes - wonderful wonderful lenses at a ‘sensible’ price

 

I don’t think that the SL is the right camera for sports (yet) and the advantages of µ43 for wildlife etc. is pretty obvious. I also think that the high ISO and general image quality is great - but that’s also true of the competition. But I really do feel that it’s a step forwards from dSLR cameras for single shot work - the AF is just fine for most purposes, the lovely quiet shutter (and of course the electronic shutter) make the camera unobtrusive and a joy to use.

[scott kirkpatrick]

To me, lenses that do something special are more critical than camera bodies.  I'm currently shooting with an M10, SL and for the past 6 weeks, a CL.  The CL lenses (with one M lens and one SL lens that fill gaps) are proving surprisingly good and the CL is a pleasure to use.  All three bodies operate in similar ways, even though Leica has managed to explore quite a wild range of different control inputs.  I think under the covers, the menus that specify what they can do are pretty much the same.  For the M10, the classic 50s, the very small 28 Elmarit-asph and the 21 Super-Elmar fit its operating style, while the SL is great with longer lenses such as the 80 SX-R 90 SC-R and the S 120 macro.  I've enjoyed using a 15 Super-Elmarit-R on the SL (it's a hefty lens, too), but the CL 11-23 may just have filled that niche.

 

The reference to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is appropriate.  Knowing a machine well and being able to use it almost unconsciously as a tool is a source of satisfaction to me.  I lived in Chicago during the years that Pirsig was writing his book (and Danny Lyon was shooting Bikeriders), but my Suzuki X-6 from those years never developed much Zen.

 

I have other cameras that I have accumulated during periods when Leica's offerings were less complete.  It's hard to sell the little-used stuff here and each group does one or two things well.  My Olympus E-M1.2 with IBIS coupling to the 12-100mm OIS lens does fantastic video, but with frustrating controls (or lack thereof).  The Olympus 75/1.8 is special, too.  I explored Fuji's X2's for a little over a year, really liking the X-Pro2 with its optical viewfinder plus AF, and the X-T2 with Fuji's 100-400 OIS lens, but the X-Pro 2 went on the shelf when the M10 arrived,  and I haven't really had occasions to need the Fuji's effective 600 mm when I can put a 90-280 on my CL and get 420 mm-eff.  So the other stuff comes out for use occasionally, and it is always a struggle to get full function from them.

[geetee1972]

Perhaps the more challenging question is not why are Leicas better but rather why are so many Leica photographers so bad?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[mmradman]

Perhaps the more challenging question is not why are Leicas better but rather why are so many Leica photographers so bad?

It may be true for Leica but equally probably true for other camera brands used by people who don’t make a living out of photography.

[geetee1972]

It may be true for Leica but equally probably true for other camera brands used by people who don’t make a living out of photography.

This is true, but then most of those people don't spend three month gross median salary on a camera and one lens.