I kind of like the fact that the new and very expensive camera is stamped with the Ernst Leitz name which was the company name before the break up of the company into three separate entities: Leica Microsystems, Leica Geosystems, and Leica Camera.
I haven’t followed Leica so I know nothing about the cameras. And I’m sure those who work with these cameras regularly will find this a stupid question. I do find it curious that in the two pages of this thread, no one has mentioned picture quality or unique features (other than the paint job). So, can someone explain to me why this camera is worth $10K? No, really!
umgrizz wrote:
I haven’t followed Leica so I know nothing about the cameras. And I’m sure those who work with these cameras regularly will find this a stupid question. I do find it curious that in the two pages of this thread, no one has mentioned picture quality or unique features (other than the paint job). So, can someone explain to me why this camera is worth $10K? No, really!
umgrizz wrote:
I haven’t followed Leica so I know nothing about the cameras. And I’m sure those who work with these cameras regularly will find this a stupid question. I do find it curious that in the two pages of this thread, no one has mentioned picture quality or unique features (other than the paint job). So, can someone explain to me why this camera is worth $10K? No, really!
Curt
Hi Curt,
In part it is what the market will bear, the precision of manufacture, hand manufactured, expense of European and and often German labor, the materials employed, the requirements of range finder precision for focus, the fact that there will only be 2,000 units made, etc.
Rich
Jun 23, 2021 at 08:59 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
umgrizz wrote:
I haven’t followed Leica so I know nothing about the cameras. And I’m sure those who work with these cameras regularly will find this a stupid question. I do find it curious that in the two pages of this thread, no one has mentioned picture quality or unique features (other than the paint job). So, can someone explain to me why this camera is worth $10K? No, really!
Curt
Most people who shoot Leica M cameras do so because they like rangefinder focussing and if you like rangefinder focussing for digital cameras Leica has a complete monopoly. Leica cameras bought brand new are very expensive, but on the used market prices are less (to a lot less) especially for older models. Image quality is competitive with these camera with other cameras made in a similar time frame but is surpassed by a fairly small margin by some of the cameras made at the same time. I don't think it makes sense to buy a Leica camera because you think the image quality from the camera is better.
There are two other fairly unique things about Leica cameras: 1) shooting a Leica camera is, IMO, a simple shooting process. You set the exposure parameters which is very simple and straightforward and then you focus and compose. For me this means focussing on the art of photographing and not on operating the camera; 2) many lenses for Leica M mount are both small and very high quality and often even have a very fast aperture. The lenses are a very important part of the Leica system and I really enjoy several lenses that have no counterpart for even mirrorless cameras.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Most people who shoot Leica M cameras do so because they like rangefinder focussing and if you like rangefinder focussing for digital cameras Leica has a complete monopoly. Leica cameras bought brand new are very expensive, but on the used market prices are less (to a lot less) especially for older models. Image quality is competitive with these camera with other cameras made in a similar time frame but is surpassed by a fairly small margin by some of the cameras made at the same time. I don't think it makes sense to buy a Leica camera because you think the image quality from the camera is better.
There are two other fairly unique things about Leica cameras: 1) shooting a Leica camera is, IMO, a simple shooting process. You set the exposure parameters which is very simple and straightforward and then you focus and compose. For me this means focussing on the art of photographing and not on operating the camera; 2) many lenses for Leica M mount are both small and very high quality and often even have a very fast aperture. The lenses are a very important part of the Leica system and I really enjoy several lenses that have no counterpart for even mirrorless cameras....Show more →
Good summary Steve. This can be tough to explain in a few short paragraphs.
This is absolutely delusional. People shoot with Leica's as an fashion accessory period end of story. Anything else you tell yourself is a disgusting attempt to rationalize your own vanity. By buying a massively overpriced Leica from a hedge fund, instead of a camera from a company that is actually supporting photography, you are actively hurting the camera industry.
It's like someone buying a Rolex using the excuse that it tells time better, it's complete BS. (Unlike a Rolex though these Leica's will be worthless in the future)
Jun 23, 2021 at 10:08 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Everythingis1 wrote:
This is absolutely delusional. People shoot with Leica's as an fashion accessory period end of story. Anything else you tell yourself is a disgusting attempt to rationalize your own vanity. By buying a massively overpriced Leica from a hedge fund, instead of a camera from a company that is actually supporting photography, you are actively hurting the camera industry.
It's like someone buying a Rolex using the excuse that it tells time better, it's complete BS. (Unlike a Rolex though these Leica's will be worthless in the future)
Uh, did someone piss in your coffee this morning? Hostile much? Calling people delusional and vain who you don't know really has no place on this forum. If you want to have a reasonable exchange please dial it back six or seven notches. If you just want to insult people, please don't.
umgrizz wrote:
So, can someone explain to me why this camera is worth $10K? No, really!
Curt
The answer is simple - collectors pay the price. Leica makes this kind of cameras in a limited number, and they are sold fast no matter what the price is or what kind of features the camera has. Keep in mind that Leica makes (also expensive) cameras for users and others more directed to the luxury collector segment. This might sound crazy but it is IMO the main reason why Leica did well where all other camera brands struggled in recent years.
Tricky part for a new Leica user is to learn separating collector items from standard Leica items. You can easily overpay by unknowingly going after something in demand by collectors.
Everythingis1 wrote:
This is absolutely delusional. People shoot with Leica's as an fashion accessory period end of story. Anything else you tell yourself is a disgusting attempt to rationalize your own vanity. By buying a massively overpriced Leica from a hedge fund, instead of a camera from a company that is actually supporting photography, you are actively hurting the camera industry.
It's like someone buying a Rolex using the excuse that it tells time better, it's complete BS. (Unlike a Rolex though these Leica's will be worthless in the future)
Everythingis1 wrote:
This is absolutely delusional. People shoot with Leica's as an fashion accessory period end of story. Anything else you tell yourself is a disgusting attempt to rationalize your own vanity. By buying a massively overpriced Leica from a hedge fund, instead of a camera from a company that is actually supporting photography, you are actively hurting the camera industry.
It's like someone buying a Rolex using the excuse that it tells time better, it's complete BS. (Unlike a Rolex though these Leica's will be worthless in the future)
But you still have lots of people buying Rolex - many collectors and investors (to sell it later for an even higher price), people who have the money and simply want to show off, and enthusiasts. Same is true for the Leica brand. Leica actually moved business in recent years more towards this segment by removing more affordable lens lines out of the program (the f/2.4 Summarit line). Leica also has a monopoly in digital rangefinder cameras - another reason why prices are so high here.
Everythingis1 wrote:
This is absolutely delusional. People shoot with Leica's as an fashion accessory period end of story. Anything else you tell yourself is a disgusting attempt to rationalize your own vanity. By buying a massively overpriced Leica from a hedge fund, instead of a camera from a company that is actually supporting photography, you are actively hurting the camera industry.
It's like someone buying a Rolex using the excuse that it tells time better, it's complete BS. (Unlike a Rolex though these Leica's will be worthless in the future)
That is one of the most ignorant, stupid, arrogant, and insulting comments that I have ever read on FM.
Or a life, or real problems to get angry about, or a bigger brain to build a more nuanced view of the world, or some basic education to learn how to express a point of view without insulting people who simply make different choices
umgrizz wrote:
I haven’t followed Leica so I know nothing about the cameras. And I’m sure those who work with these cameras regularly will find this a stupid question. I do find it curious that in the two pages of this thread, no one has mentioned picture quality or unique features (other than the paint job). So, can someone explain to me why this camera is worth $10K? No, really!
A long time ago, I started shooting street, i.e. people with my first real SLR, a Canon A1. It was noisy and it was hard to be unobtrusive.
So, when I started to work, I bought a Leica M as it was supposed to be the best choice for street photography: silent, discreet, efficient. It was possible because Leica had this leasing offer (I was paid minimum wages at the time).
And I found I loved these cameras.
Nowadays, the market is full of silent, very efficient (fast AF, great sensors) cameras. I've tried many of them, bought and still use some of them.
But I continue to use a Leica M. Why? Because I love the rangefinder, the ergonomics, the lenses... When I see something in the street I want to shoot, my mind "frames it" to match the lens I have on the camera at the time (usually 35mm, sometimes 28mm or 50mm) and I just take the picture after a quick focusing adjustment (or not if I'm using hyperfocal).
To me, this is something like "Zen and the art of rangefinder shooting": I stop thinking, stop caring about the camera, the lens, the settings and I just see and shoot.
And it feels good.
naturephoto1 wrote:
That is one of the most ignorant, stupid, arrogant, and insulting comments that I have ever read on FM.
Rich
Is it really like this? I am a Leica user but I don't feel insulted by it at all. I also don't think the statement is arrogant or stupid. I think the poster tackled simply a controversial issue regarding prices for which Leica is known. The wording/phrasing and some conclusions are not the best, agreed - but we should be open to criticism and not just expect applause. Some responded well to his original question - so far I don't have the impression he is a troll. I wonder more about some reactions here - do we take criticism regarding a brand's strategy so personal?
Everythingis1 wrote:
This is absolutely delusional. People shoot with Leica's as an fashion accessory period end of story. Anything else you tell yourself is a disgusting attempt to rationalize your own vanity. By buying a massively overpriced Leica from a hedge fund, instead of a camera from a company that is actually supporting photography, you are actively hurting the camera industry.
It's like someone buying a Rolex using the excuse that it tells time better, it's complete BS. (Unlike a Rolex though these Leica's will be worthless in the future)
I'm surprised it took this long for a post like this to appear in this thread. Wouldn't be surprising to me if you have $20K in camera gear yourself.
