# Worth $12,000 to buy a Leica and two lenses?



## devermb (Jan 23, 2017)

I am poised to buy a Leica M.  I am looking for something I can carry the world round, sometimes in physically rough places.  I also want something discrete.  I have Canons, but they are large, with large lenses, and they are not as durable presumably as a Leica built with more metal.  

I am also intrigued by the quality of photos of the Leica.  What separates a Leica M photo from other photos?

Any  observations, criticisms of and answers to this would be much appreciated.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 23, 2017)

If you're a Leica owner, it's obvious.  If you're not, nothing.  I belong in the latter camp.  Leica makes great gear, it will (or at least used to) last for years, but the actual images?  There's nothing that makes them any better or worse than any others.  That is due to the skill of the owner of the finger that presses the button.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 23, 2017)

Leica lenses are assembled to very exacting standards, and built robustly. As to the quality of the photos of the Leica: MANY of the leica shooters of today are experts, true, decades-of-working-at-honing-their-craft shooters. Leicas are less popular now than they were in the 40's and 50's and 1960's. The lenses are built for a LIFETIME of use.

As to the quality of the photos, this article addresses this Leica mystique quite well: The Judgment Of Paris: The Blind Taste Test That Decanted The Wine World

Look up the Irwin Putz blog; he has some great entries on the Leica mystique.


----------



## alexis.alvarez (Jan 23, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Leica lenses are assembled to very exacting standards, and built robustly. As to the quality of the photos of the Leica: MANY of the leica shooters of today are experts, true, decades-of-working-at-honing-their-craft shooters. Leicas are less popular now than they were in the 40's and 50's and 1960's. The lenses are built for a LIFETIME of use.
> 
> As to the quality of the photos, this article addresses this Leica mystique quite well: The Judgment Of Paris: The Blind Taste Test That Decanted The Wine World
> 
> Look up the Irwin Putz blog; he has some great entries on the Leica mystique.


Derrel, 

Um, the link is to an article on the wine industry.
aa


----------



## tirediron (Jan 23, 2017)

alexis.alvarez said:


> Derrel,
> 
> Um, the link is to an article on the wine industry.
> aa


Think about it!


----------



## runnah (Jan 23, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Leica lenses are assembled to very exacting standards, and built robustly. As to the quality of the photos of the Leica: MANY of the leica shooters of today are experts, true, decades-of-working-at-honing-their-craft shooters. Leicas are less popular now than they were in the 40's and 50's and 1960's. The lenses are built for a LIFETIME of use.
> 
> As to the quality of the photos, this article addresses this Leica mystique quite well: The Judgment Of Paris: The Blind Taste Test That Decanted The Wine World
> 
> Look up the Irwin Putz blog; he has some great entries on the Leica mystique.




You know whats better than a sucker? A rich sucker.


----------



## Dave Colangelo (Jan 23, 2017)

If you point a Leica at the ground, forget to focus it and don't bother to meter anything, it will take a bad picture.

If you point a FED2 at a beautiful landscape, think about composition, remember all you have learned of the zone system, it will take a beautiful photo.

So what you ask is the difference, ten out of ten times that properly serviced Leica will fire the shutter and it will be just the speed you set it to. Three out of ten times that FED2 will fire the shutter and it may or may not be within a stop of what you need it to be, until that time you fire it and the lens falls off....  

There are plenty of big Leica lenses and small cannon lenses. The Leica is not more discrete than your cannon because it costs more, its more discrete because its mirror-less (something you can obtain for far less than 12K). My entry level Nikon D3300 has been all over the world with me, in the snow of southern Vermont, the summer sand of the beach, the rains of Ireland, tossed in and out of camera bags and banged around overhead compartments. It still works fine... I consider it very durable.



Regards
Dave


----------



## runnah (Jan 23, 2017)

They made a movie about that with Alan Rickman and Chris Pine. it was quite good.

Bottle Shock (2008) - IMDb


----------



## Derrel (Jan 23, 2017)

My apologies to Erwin Puts, the Leica author. I had his name spelled incorrectly above. He has written quite a bit about the Leica system and its lenses, its history, and its relationship to photography, in both film and digital eras. The thing about the Leica is that it has always been built with ultimate longevity and durability and ruggedness in mind. As Mr. Puts has mentioned this used to be a viable way to make cameras--objects that would last for decades, using film, which would improve year after year and decade after decade.

But now cameras are no longer simply Optical / Mechanical Devices but also have a computer / digital aspect and their lives are much shorter than for film cams. This means that that $5,000 to $7,600 camera body is no longer a lifetime investment.

I really think if you have to ask the question is it worth $12,000,  the answer is likely no it's probably not worth that much money for you. As Dave mentioned one of the compact small frame Nikon camera bodies would likely provide the digital aspect with very affordable lenses and the cost and value are in accord with the modern paradigm. And when one comes right down to it the rangefinder style camera is severely limited on things like macro and even medium and long telephoto lenses.


----------



## Didereaux (Jan 23, 2017)

devermb said:


> I am poised to buy a Leica M.  I am looking for something I can carry the world round, sometimes in physically rough places.  I also want something discrete.  I have Canons, but they are large, with large lenses, and they are not as durable presumably as a Leica built with more metal.
> 
> I am also intrigued by the quality of photos of the Leica.  What separates a Leica M photo from other photos?
> 
> Any  observations, criticisms of and answers to this would be much appreciated.




If you think buying a Leica is going to improve your photography  then spend the $12K...you'll just lose it somewhere anyhow.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 23, 2017)

I can see the appeal of Leica.  But, like Derrel pointed out, a large part of any digital camera is the sensor and micro-processor and, as we have all seen, these things go obsolete quickly.  What is "STATE OF THE ART" today will become "LONG IN THE TOOTH" in just a few years.  I personally use a Sony A6000 with a Sigma 30mm f/2.8  for personal travel and love it.


----------



## fmw (Jan 24, 2017)

I used Leica rangefinders for some things years ago.  I'm not sure why.  Perhaps it was because I bought a Leica collection for a song from someone who needed money.  I liked and appreciated them.  I had models ranging from the IIIf to the M6.

The one very positive thing I can say about them is that they could use wide angle lenses without a retrofocus design.  No SLR could match what a wide angle Leica lens lens could do - including Leica SLRs.  That is still true today.  SLR's didn't really catch up to Leica lens design until the advent of computer aided design and SLR wide angles never did and can't.  Perhaps they are making mirrorless wide angles without retrofocus.  If so that is a real plus.


----------



## KmH (Jan 24, 2017)

greybeard said:


> . . . these things go obsolete quickly. . .


Obsolete. I LMAO every time I see that said here on TPF.
One does not need the latest and greatest to make nice, even high quality, photographs.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 24, 2017)

Personally, I want an M6. Reality, I can take just as bad a picture with a Nikon FM.  I like the M6 because it's simple and laid out well for my big paws. Is it worth the extra $4500 (with summicron 35 f2)? Not a chance. If I had butt loads of cash, sure why not. I look at photos from the masters and some of them had basic, non flashy cameras. Photos from Gary a, limr, Derrel, to name a few, prove that it's not the camera but the photographer.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 24, 2017)

KmH said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > . . . these things go obsolete quickly. . .
> ...



And that's why a Nikon D3300 or D3400 and $1,500 in lenses could equal or better the $12,000 two-lens Leica kit. And why the $20 bottle of California wine can equal or better the $175 bottle of French wine.


----------



## chuasam (Jan 24, 2017)

devermb said:


> I am also intrigued by the quality of photos of the Leica.  What separates a Leica M photo from other photos?


ridiculous hype and marketing.

If you gave me $12k and told me to get something for world travel.
I would get all of the following cameras and bring them.

Option 1:
Camera 1: Sony RX1RII
i've put it up against a Leica and the Sony won.

Camera 2: Olympus EM1 Mk2 with the 12-100 f/4

Camera 3: Olympus TG4 (for truly rough and underwater)


Option 2:
Camera 1: Sony A7S II (for low light)
Camera 2: Sony A7RII (high res)
selection of lenses
Camera 3: Nikon AW1 (for rough and underwater)
Camera 4: Sony RX100 V (for discrete shots)


----------



## runnah (Jan 24, 2017)

I'd pick up one of those new Fuji medium format jobs. Bigger yeah but much better bang for the buck.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 24, 2017)

KmH said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > . . . these things go obsolete quickly. . .
> ...


That is very true.  People are still making great photos with their Nikon D90's, D700's, Canon 5D's etc.  but, they didn't have to pay $12,000.00 for them.  If I'm going to pay that kind of money for something it should have a trade-in upgrade option every 5 years or so.


----------



## chuasam (Jan 24, 2017)

runnah said:


> I'd pick up one of those new Fuji medium format jobs. Bigger yeah but much better bang for the buck.


Yeah but it isn't exactly small and subtle


----------



## Derrel (Jan 24, 2017)

How about the Canon SL-1, the mini-dslr from the world's best-selling camera maker, and the two pancake primes, their 24mm f/2.8 and their 40mm f/2.8 lenses, for a small,light, discreet Leica-sized body and two autofocusing, through-the-lens viewing, smaller-than-Leica prime lenses, and then a small, light zoom, or a very fast-aperture 85/1.8, and then their 70-200 f/4 L-IS USM as your long-range lens?

And since you now have $9,000 left, why not pick up that amazing Sony zoom camera with the 1" sensor?


----------



## runnah (Jan 24, 2017)

chuasam said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > I'd pick up one of those new Fuji medium format jobs. Bigger yeah but much better bang for the buck.
> ...



Yeah but with a Leica you have to awkwardly hold it in such a way so that everyone can clearly see the branding .


----------



## greybeard (Jan 24, 2017)

I had a friend who has passed away who  was a big Leica owner/fan.  This was back in the bad old days of film (lol).  For him, the look, feel, and name, was worth whatever he had to pay for his Leica.  And, if I had unlimited funds, I would probably have some Leica equipment too.


----------



## devermb (Jan 24, 2017)

Derrel said:


> How about the Canon SL-1, the mini-dslr from the world's best-selling camera maker, and the two pancake primes, their 24mm f/2.8 and their 40mm f/2.8 lenses, for a small,light, discreet Leica-sized body and two autofocusing, through-the-lens viewing, smaller-than-Leica prime lenses, and then a small, light zoom, or a very fast-aperture 85/1.8, and then their 70-200 f/4 L-IS USM as your long-range lens?
> 
> And since you now have $9,000 left, why not pick up that amazing Sony zoom camera with the 1" sensor?


You are reading my mind: next question was: what compact high performing camera could I get:  A while ago I was going between the Leica Q with a a 28mm summilux lense (Leica  Q (Typ 116) Digital Camera (Black) 19000 B&H Photo Video) or the Sony mini camera with a 35 mm lense (Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R II Digital Camera DSCRX1RM2/B B&H Photo), but I want a 50 mm lens option.


----------



## devermb (Jan 24, 2017)

chuasam said:


> devermb said:
> 
> 
> > I am also intrigued by the quality of photos of the Leica.  What separates a Leica M photo from other photos?
> ...



How did the Sony win against the Leica (which one)?


----------



## Derrel (Jan 24, 2017)

devermb said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > How about the Canon SL-1, the mini-dslr from the world's best-selling camera maker, and the two pancake primes, their 24mm f/2.8 and their 40mm f/2.8 lenses, for a small,light, discreet Leica-sized body and two autofocusing, through-the-lens viewing, smaller-than-Leica prime lenses, and then a small, light zoom, or a very fast-aperture 85/1.8, and then their 70-200 f/4 L-IS USM as your long-range lens?
> ...



I honestly think the 28mm fixed lens of the Leica is a BAD choice for much photography, unless you like that focal length a whole lot. And the same with an almost-$4,000 fixed-lens compact camera stuck with a 35mm fixed lens...neither of these qualify as high-performasnce to me, but more as HALO products, designed for that subset of people who *are enchanted by lens f/stop*...I've known many of these people over the past 30 years...they talk abou, "The f/1.4!", and "The f/1.7!" and the "f/1.2, the f/1.2!" and so on...seemingly unaware that wide aperture images have so,so little in-focus that many pictures *look like mistakes* to non-obsessed, regular people. I've grown tired of seeing one eyeball in-focus, and everything else OOF.

Yeah...a 50mm lens option would be nice. The full-sized sensor? I totally get that. But a FF sensor and one, fixed focal length, at the wide end of the spectrum? Seriously...I'd rather have an iPhone for that. Meaning being stuck with one semi-wide lens length on a smartphone camera.

$3800 to $4000 for ONE lens? No. Not versatile. LOUSY for portraits, lousy for distances over 12 feet. Everything with the Leica will look wide-angle. Everything with the Sony will be a pseudo-wide. The iPhone might even be superior in many situations, with the smaller sensor and shorter lens giving hyperfocal DOD in situations where that's a bonus.

Real photography is best with lenses of the appropriae focal lengths for the situation. Sometimes, that might be a 28, or 35mm lens, but could EASILY be a 50, or an 85, or a 135mm lens, or a 200mm, or a 300mm length. There is a very real reason that Leica rangefinder died off when quickly, after Nikon developed the F-system beginning in 1959. Being able to see through the lens is a big deal. So is lens intercahangeability to suit different conditions.


----------



## devermb (Jan 24, 2017)

Derrel said:


> devermb said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



What most pokes through in the various exchanges I've had here is that complete reversal that Leica has undergone in the digital age:  its film cameras last for decades because only the film needs to improve, but it's digital needs to change every three years or so because the sensor tech needs to stay superior or at least competitive with the other brands.  I can't afford to shell out $7k every three years or so to get the latest Leica sensory tech in a new camera.  

Has DSLR sensory technology gotten better than film?  My first digital camera -- a Canon E20 I got in 2006, looks downright grainy now.  

BTW, I spent more than $10k on two Otus lenses -- 55mm and 85mm, and they are so good that you touch the image and almost feel whatever is in the photo.  But they are too heavy to carry outside my studio for a long time, so I am looking for something of this quality to carry around the world: light in weight, high quality, hence the research into Leica I am doing.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 24, 2017)

Yes you have described the Erwin Puts digital-era paradigm shift article he wrote a couple of years ago. Film allowed every camera to become better as film got better, but digital sensors and replacement parts and repairs for these things have a finite lifespan.

I think that you should buy a compact camera that can use the two Zeiss otus lenses that you have already bought,but for travel of course, get smaller handier lenses. Leica M3 used to mean something from 1953 to 1975, but it no longer means much to me. I would rather have a Nikon or Canon or a Pentax in DSLR form or Sony mirrorless even.


----------



## loonatic45414 (Jan 24, 2017)

If you can buy the best for just $12k, why shoot anything else? From the time I bought my first Leica, I never looked at anything else.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk


----------



## greybeard (Jan 24, 2017)

loonatic45414 said:


> If you can buy the best for just $12k, why shoot anything else? From the time I bought my first Leica, I never looked at anything else.
> 
> Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk


You sound like my friend I mentioned in an earlier post.  I personally would not be happy shooting exclusively Leica because I like to shoot some macro and long tele's.  Using a Leica for those things is like putting an outboard motor on a bathtub and calling it a speedboat.


----------



## loonatic45414 (Jan 24, 2017)

greybeard said:


> loonatic45414 said:
> 
> 
> > If you can buy the best for just $12k, why shoot anything else? From the time I bought my first Leica, I never looked at anything else.
> ...


Leica isn't for everyone. I'm not criticizing you, please don't criticize me. There's something I felt that came out in my photos, more vibrancy, more 3d feel, more life.

Shooting with any other glass is a waste of time for me, except for a couple choice Zeiss lenses.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, but I see non-photography people being polite & saying nice things to others about their lifeless photos, yet they are fascinated at those taken with a Leica.

I don't shoot digital, It's often too contrasty & over produced to the point of looking fake for my taste. But that's just my opinion.





Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk


----------



## unpopular (Jan 24, 2017)

*CONTAX!*


----------



## Gary A. (Jan 25, 2017)

@devermb:  Yes.  I think you would love and enjoy travelling with a Leica M.  The only reservation is the difference in cost is significant.  I think the additional cost of Leica is not directly reflected in the image.  Similarly, the extra cost of a flagship Canon or Nikon does not translate directly to IQ. You pay a premium for 1) an extremely well built and limited production body and 2) access to Leica glass (as a group arguably the finest group of lenses in the world).

If you are questioning the cost of Leica, then cost is still a consideration. If you seek a small footprint camera for travel and don't want to pawn your first born, I suggest a Fuji X100T or an X-Pro2. The X100T is a fixed lens 23mm, APS-C camera. Consequently, you will have to foot zoom for some of your shots.  Personally, I think that on a getaway vacation, (as opposed to a photo expedition vacation), the 23mm would satisfy 80%+ of my needs. If you want more flexibility the X-Pro2 is a bit larger, but is an interchangeable lens camera.

The cameras are fun and have a high build quality.  Both cameras have a hybrid viewfinder and can be used with an EVF or an optical rangefinder-like focusing system. Both are mirrorless and are very quiet.  With a leaf shutter, the X100T can be totally silent.  Fujinon XF lenses are exceptional.

Check them out.

PS- I have a Leica M4-P and I appreciate all the magic Leica has crafted into the camera to make it a sheer pleasure to use. 

Do I think a Leica film or digital image is significantly superior to a film or digital image from Nikon/Canon/Fuji ... no. If I was gifted a travel camera and I could choose between a Leica, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Fuji, et al ... I'd choose a Leica.  If I had limited funds and had to purchase a camera for travel ... a Fuji. (I'm a fanboy.)


----------



## loonatic45414 (Jan 25, 2017)

Gary... well said. I agree wholeheartedly. I agree Leica may be 6 times the price without being 6 times the quality, but it is the finest one can get once money isn't a factor and I've owned many. Yes, there are many great lenses, I love some of the Zeiss Jena from the 70's and so on. I'm not talking medium or large format, that's a whole other topic.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk


----------



## chuasam (Jan 28, 2017)

devermb said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > devermb said:
> ...



Any non-medium format Leica. The red dot brand typically has crap sensors.


----------



## loonatic45414 (Jan 28, 2017)

I can't speak for plastic electronic digital cameras that will end up on the scrap pile in a couple years, but I love my M6. Like a Rolls Royce or Rolex, it may not make sense to the masses.  There's better for shooting windsurfing, etc, just like there are better vehicles for mud bogging. If you can afford one, you deserve it. If not, enjoy what you have but there's no reason to trash what you will probably never understand & make yourself look like an ass in the process.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk


----------



## unpopular (Jan 28, 2017)

If you're even considering film I'd rather have a Contax G2 (because Contax) or the Fuji that is rebranded as Hasselblad Xpan, or the XPan.

Either that or a Fuji GXIII. An Ultima 23N or an Arcbody. Or an Alpa XY.

What can I say. I don't travel light.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 28, 2017)

loonatic45414 said:


> I can't speak for plastic electronic digital cameras that will end up on the scrap pile in a couple years, but I love my M6. Like a Rolls Royce or Rolex, it may not make sense to the masses.  There's better for shooting windsurfing, etc, just like there are better vehicles for mud bogging. If you can afford one, you deserve it. If not, enjoy what you have but there's no reason to trash what you will probably never understand & make yourself look like an ass in the process.



From what I've seen at Photo.net Leicas are pretty much play things of perverted old men that call themselves 'street photographers' that are into upskirts.

Please. Check your elitism at the door. Contax cost a fraction of what Leica had and was *FAR* superior. If we're going to get into such snobery, bring it on.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 29, 2017)

Let me rephrase this in a bit of a less infantile way than just more camera snobbery.

It's ridiculous that only the wealthy can appreciate Leica cameras, as if your income determines if you 'deserve' a finely crafted camera or not. As if only the wealthiest members of society can appreciate some of the best glass in the world.

Any photographer who shoots manual can appreciate Leica. Period. And any dedicated photographer deserves the best equipment. This has nothing at all to do with if you can afford it or not. The rich don't have a refined taste (just look at Trump's gaudy interior decorating and outright assault on typography). It's just a matter of fact that the rich can afford finer things.

My family makes very little. I do what I can with a collection of "classic" lenses and a couple of older bodies.

I understand Leica. I understand the appeal. Don't tell me for a minute that I'm just not worthy or incapable of appreciating Leica due to the economic status I find myself in.

And trust me. I've seen LOTS of terribly photography on leica forums. Truely terrible garbage being passed off as "street photography". Literally, panty shots taken with cameras that cost more than my car. And not just once either. This seems to be a reoccurring theme on Leica forums.

So please. If that's "appreciating" Leica, then I suppose Leica doesn't have much to offer - either that or these perverted old men are simply incapable of truly appreciating what Leica is all about.

Still though. Contax is better.


----------



## bert0324 (Jan 29, 2017)

Old adage: If you have to ask, you can't afford it. But do buy a Leica, say an M6, for a fraction of your 12000. Doesn't neccesarily need a Summicron either, try a Zeiss Planar. Go for it, but don't spend 12000 unless you're absolutely sure that it fits in with whatever your financial commitments are.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 29, 2017)

No one should ever have to defend their choice of equipment or its' cost on this forum.  I have enough of that with my wife (lol).  Most of us, if we totaled up what we spend on our hobbies would probably be shocked to see how much we spend.  I personally think that the totally mechanical film Leica's are worth whatever they cost  because they will perform the way they should perform for ever.  As for digital Leica's I have a problem as it has been my experience that electronics age out and become non-functional.  Cameras are to photographers what instruments are to musicians.  Wynton Marsalis plays a custom trumpet made to his specifications  by Dave Monette.  It's cost was probably in excess of $12,000.00 .  I would speculate that if he were to play the Haydn concerto on it and then play the same piece on a student model Yamaha, few if anybody could tell the difference.  Because Wynton sounds like Wynton on whatever horn he is playing as long as it is in good playing order and will play in tune.  He will, of course, know the difference as his Monette will play easier, he won't have to work as hard to get the same result.  And, his expensive Monette will last for generations because it has NO ELECTRONICS.  Incidentally, I have a SS Rolex my wife bought for me 20 years ago and it still runs like a champ.  It is worth more today than when she bought it.  It doesn't have any electronics either.


----------



## Gary A. (Jan 29, 2017)

unpopular said:


> Let me rephrase this in a bit of a less infantile way than just more camera snobbery.
> 
> It's ridiculous that only the wealthy can appreciate Leica cameras, as if your income determines if you 'deserve' a finely crafted camera or not. As if only the wealthiest members of society can appreciate some of the best glass in the world.
> 
> ...


We all see differently and we all shoot differently.  Way back in the film-only days I used a pair of motorized Leicas for work. I did it mainly to be different ... but they worked out well enough for most of what I was shooting. After being different for a spell I returned to Nikon which worked out better than well enough.

This is a thread about equipment.  We have all read and heard that photographers make the photo not the camera.  But that isn't necessarily and entirely true.  I found that the greater the skill of the photog the more importance/difference gear makes.  Good/better gear in the hands of a highly skilled photog will definitely improve the images both in content and consistency. Conversely, the same good/better gear in the hands of a novice with little skill will do little to improve the impact of their images.

The highly skilled photog, generally, will capture the 'Exceptional Image' with any camera.  Good/expensive gear just makes it easier to capture that image.  The greater the ease of capture the higher the consistency.   

I have never visited a Leica forum.  But what I have discovered in my travels is that many people buy Leicas more as an 'investment' and for the prestige than as an instrument for taking pictures. There are photographers and there are collectors.  Fortunately or unfortunately, because of the high resale value (the Leica mystique), there are a ton of collectors in the Leica world. 

In general, saying Contax is better, is of course arguable, (that was Carl's specific intent ... to make a Leica killer).  And it very well may be better ... for you.  

My personal experience with film cameras, I like Contax, I've used Contax, I have Zeiss lenses ... Zeiss and Contax are great lenses and cameras ... in my book they are quite comparable to Leica.  Did Contax make a motordrive for their rangefinder cameras ... I don't think so ... so Contax would have failed my bar as a better camera than Leica.  Would a non-motorized Leica captured a similar image with similar consistency as a non-motorized Leica ... yes.  For my hands, the Leica design and build-quality is better than any other camera I've owned.  I also feel that camera 'feel' is the absolutely last criteria to be used in selecting a camera.

I must be digressing ... so  in summary:

In general, better equipment, in the hands of a skilled photographer will produce improve images with greater consistency. 

There are photographers and collectors.  High resale of equipment tend to favor the collector.  Collectors will significantly lower the general impact and quality of photos coming from that pool.

Leica has a low index value of cost-to-image-quality.

Get what you want ... the high resale of Leica may minimize any monetary pain if you choose that dump the camera later.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 29, 2017)

Some interesting points have come up in the last few replies. But the real question keeps coming back to the OP; it is worth $12,000 for a travel photographer to spend that much money to end up with 1) A single Leica camera and 2) two lenses. And the answer really seems to me to be, likely no. Why? Because it is one camera, and two, NON-zoom single focal length lenses. Shooting travel images with two, single focal length lenses is going to lead to a fairly boring overall look. The Leica rangefinder system is built upon selecting a body that has the right viewfinder magnification for the specific "normal" lens you want to put on it, and having then either too much, or too little, viewfinder magnification for your wides or your longer-than-normal lens.

The Leica was deigned originally as a snapshot camera, as a camera that could literally SNAP! a shot, back when groundglass focusing and tripods and 2-minute camera set-up periods were common and when big, hulking cameras ruled the world of "serious" photography. Barnack's camera brought with it the freedom to see the world, with a FAST-handling, light, small camera. The idea was revolutionary in its era, and by the early 1930's, the Leica system was well on its way. By 1953, the M3 was out. In 1984, the M6 debuted, and ran until 1998, when the M6 TTL (TTL flash control) came out.

The Leica M6 (heralded earlier as God-like perfection) had one of the most-pathetic flash-synch speeds of all-time, 1/50 second. A leica tradition for decades. Think about that: a camera so tradition-bound that the makers consider that ANY flash shot can be handled by a 1/50 second top speed. Remember, Leica is a camera system originally designed just a couple of years before flashbulbs were invented in 1928.

Is the $589 Metz flash that allows M-digital cameras to synch flash at above 1/50 second even still in production? Leica has for decades, been plagued with slow flash sync limits that were bypassed r other camera makers by the 1960's.

The Leica system has poor viewfinder/composing abilities even with a tele a short as 75mm...you squint and imagine what it is you see in that teeny square for the 75mm lens.  The Leica is a rangefinder: the Contax G-series is NOT a true rangefinder system, and is an advanced AF-type camera that looks similar, but which is not the same thing; the Leica rangefinder system is designed for 28mm, 35mm,and 50mm lenses, mostly. It cannot always accurately focus 90mm or 135mm lenses at close distances; the viewfinder system is/was designed for close-range, semi-wide-angle pictures. Think iPhone 6. The *iPhone camera philosophy closely emulates what the original Barnack Leica was supposed to be: a street shooter, at closer ranges.*

If you want to do macro work, or take flash photos during daylight hours, or do creative flash-fill, or take telephoto pictures, or pictures of fast-moving action, or to show long-range sights with a 135mm or 200mm or 70-300mm or a 70-200 or a 17-35 or 24-70mm zoom, or to have any zooms, then the Leica lens system has no real options. IF you'd be happy with a 35mm and a 50mm lens and one camera to carry across the world, then yeah, drop $12K on that mini-kit. But realize you're losing macro, close-up, medium tele, long telephoto, and all zoom options (Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 excepted). And you've pretty severely hurt your flash options as well. Think of it as a $12k iPhone 6S Plus. Only bigger, and heavier, and without the good video capabilities and internet and phone and the photo-sharing capbilities of the smartphone.

I'm not really sure that the modern L qualifies as "better equipment" in the year 2017, as Gary A mentions. When he was using the system, Leica was "better built". But a system with a narrow lens selection, no zooms, no telephotos, no macro capability, and no autofocusing...is that really "better" in 2017?


----------



## unpopular (Jan 29, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> In general, saying Contax is better, is of course arguable, (that was Carl's specific intent ... to make a Leica killer).  And it very well may be better ... for you.



That's kind of my point. Zeiss/Classic Zeiss/Kyocera was better because Contax. Not for any real reason. Just because. The debate between Contax/Leica is the rich people equivalent to Canon/Nikon.


----------



## loonatic45414 (Jan 29, 2017)

Are all Contax people this insecure? I think it's a fine camera. Not sure why all the hate.  Leica or Contax (there... better?) are the step you take when you're ready to get serious. I made less than $30k a year when I got my M6 with 50mm Summicron and 90mm Tele-Elmarit 90mm. Didn't cost anywhere near $12k.

I shoot medium format and large format up to 5x7, I appreciate a quick shooter but still want quality glass. To the person who says a Leica makes a terrible travel camera, maybe you should buy a Canonet or early Yashica with a 45mm fixed lens and teach yourself to appreciate it.

I don't care what other people do with their Leica, there are lots of crap photos no matter what the platform. All I'm saying is after spending decades with a Minolta SRT-101, I was able to afford a Leica M6. We've been best friends ever since.

I almost forgot.. Contax is a fine camera also.  Yes. It is. 

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk


----------



## chuasam (Jan 30, 2017)

loonatic45414 said:


> I can't speak for plastic electronic digital cameras that will end up on the scrap pile in a couple years, but I love my M6. Like a Rolls Royce or Rolex, it may not make sense to the masses.  There's better for shooting windsurfing, etc, just like there are better vehicles for mud bogging. If you can afford one, you deserve it. If not, enjoy what you have but there's no reason to trash what you will probably never understand & make yourself look like an ass in the process.
> 
> Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk



Unlike a Leica, a Rolex is a genuinely good watch. Totally inhouse right to the type of steel or gold. Right up there with Grand Seiko in terms of quality.


----------



## Gary A. (Jan 30, 2017)

chuasam said:


> loonatic45414 said:
> 
> 
> > I can't speak for plastic electronic digital cameras that will end up on the scrap pile in a couple years, but I love my M6. Like a Rolls Royce or Rolex, it may not make sense to the masses.  There's better for shooting windsurfing, etc, just like there are better vehicles for mud bogging. If you can afford one, you deserve it. If not, enjoy what you have but there's no reason to trash what you will probably never understand & make yourself look like an ass in the process.
> ...


To me Leica and Rolex and very different in that many experts will place film Leicas, at or near the top in terms of quality.  Most watch experts I read about do not endorse Rolex as the king of quality. Even though Leica has limited use (no very long, no very wide, no macro), it still maintains, in my opinion, an unreasonably high resale value ... as does Rolex. In that respect Rolex and Leica are similar.  Yes, Rolex is a genuinely good watch, but it does not favorably compare in workmanship to other watchmakers.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 30, 2017)

_"No matter how hard you hug your money, it never hugs back." _
~ H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

If it makes you happy and spending that amount doesn't harm others they who cares what others think.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 30, 2017)

Ok, so for the op.. would I recommend a Leica...

Ummm, probably not.  No, I don't own one.  Of course that doesn't mean I can't "appreciate" or "understand" them.   It's a camera.  A fancy camera, sure.. but it's still just a camera.  Nothing mystical about it.  No reading of sacred scrolls required.  It's just a nice camera.

So, in the 35 mm days having a camera that would last a decade or longer... well yes, that might be a good investment.  In the digital era, no, not really.  I really wouldn't want to be shooting a 2 mp sensor today, even if it was the finest 2 mp sensor ever crafted by man when it first came out.

As for build quality, well you can buy something like 5 or 6 replacements of some really tough, professional grade cameras for what it would cost you for one Leica.  So not really seeing a value in that personally.  Especially when you don't have to buy all of them up front.  Buy a top of the line, professional grade camera today - use it for a few years, and when it finally gives out or you decide to replace it, buy the top of the line replacement.  That way you stay current with the best technology.

As for image quality - sure, they have some really nice lenses.  But as Derrel points out, the selection is pretty limited and your perspective choices will be pretty close to the same.  You can get a lot more variety and thus a lot more artistic freedom going with a less limited system.  Will the image quality be slightly but almost  imperceptibly less using non-Leica glass?  Ya, probably.  Will anyone really be able to tell the difference?  No, probably not.

Now if your a collector or are looking for your camera to be more than just a camera but a symbol of status, then yes, a Leica might make a good choice.  But a working professional in the digital era?  I think you get a lot more value for your money investing in a different system.  

Just my 2 cents worth, YMMV


----------



## table1349 (Jan 30, 2017)

The OP may or may not find this useful. Why I got rid of my photography gear.


----------



## jake337 (Jan 30, 2017)

Derrel said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > greybeard said:
> ...



Hahaha!

D3300 and $1,500 in lenses?

More like a used D90 and used 50mm f1.8D, lol.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 30, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> The OP may or may not find this useful. Why I got rid of my photography gear.



So if you can't man up and make a decision prior to shooting, this might be a viable option I guess.  Ok, sure.. lol


----------



## table1349 (Jan 30, 2017)

robbins.photo said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > The OP may or may not find this useful. Why I got rid of my photography gear.
> ...


Perhaps, or perhaps as one ages and gains more insight into life as well as themselves one makes a change that is beneficial for them and their life style and choices.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 30, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Perhaps, or perhaps as one ages and gains more insight into life as well as themselves one makes a change that is beneficial for them and their life style and choices.



I guess that could be.. but honestly I started rolling my eyes the minute he pulled out the references to feeding his soul.  Ugh.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 30, 2017)

robbins.photo said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps, or perhaps as one ages and gains more insight into life as well as themselves one makes a change that is beneficial for them and their life style and choices.
> ...


----------



## chuasam (Jan 30, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > loonatic45414 said:
> ...


Film Leica was great in its day. It allowed photographers to use a smaller format and still get great images. Leica bodies are overrated. The lenses are good but you can put a Leica lens on a Zorki and get the same image. 

Rolex doesn't really have workmanship. Much of the production is done by robots and machines. They still make a very very good watch. Rolex is the king of quality (with Grand Seiko), they're not just High End. Mid-Range Luxury usually.


----------



## devermb (Jan 31, 2017)

devermb said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > devermb said:
> ...



I continue to toy with the idea of getting the new Leica 10 with a 35mm and a 50mm lenses.  Why?  For its discrete size and high quality photos while on the road.  But why should I get one if it will be succeeded by an M 11 on three years? Why would I spend $7,000 on a camera body that will be "obsolete" in three years?  Would the difference in quality between the Leica 10 and the semi-imaginary "Leica 11" be so great as to make the Leica 10 really obsolete?

And besides, who uses Leica digital?  Professionals?  Street photogs?  Effete people who can afford these $7,000 camera bodies?


----------



## greybeard (Jan 31, 2017)

devermb said:


> devermb said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


I think you have pretty much answered your own question.  Leica film cameras held their value because they were mechanically a shutter, a box to hold the film, a mechanism to wind the film, a mount to hold a spectacular lens, and a mechanism to focus the lens.  All of these parts were assembled with the utmost precision.  The only big difference between models was the metering system.  Fast forward to today with digital being an emerging technology with huge improvements every 3 years or so and you have answered your question.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 31, 2017)

devermb said:


> devermb said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


What makes it obsolete in 3 years.  Is you car obsolete now that it is not new.  How about you house? Do you buy one every year so as to not have an obsolete house.  New wardrobe yearly, new watch, etc.....etc.   

A little story for you since you seem not to be able to decide.

*“You’re Fixin’ To Mess Up” by Jerry Clower*

“Just recently I had the privilege of doing a show at Samford University in Birmingham. Some of the young people there said, ‘Mr. Clower, what’s right and wrong?’ Tell us, we’re young people, tell us, what’s right and wrong.

Well you ask a pretty good question.

So I worked me up a rule of thumb I’d like to recommend to my own children, and to young people.

If you’re fixin’ to make a decision about what’s right and what’s wrong in your life, do you ask other people’s opinion about it? That’s a pretty good indication your fixin’ to mess up. I was getting ready for a date one night when I was a little ole boy. And I walked into the side room and I said, ‘Mama, is my shirt dirty?’ She said, ‘Son, if you’re in doubt, it’s dirty. Pull it off and getcha another.’ So if you’re fixin’ to do something, and you want to know if it’s right or not, _number one: do you ask other people’s opinion about it?_

_Number two: do you argue with yourself?_ Man, I have spent a million miles on the highway arguing with Jerry about I oughta do a certain thing and I knew in my heart, I was lying. So if you’re arguin’ with yourself, pretty good indication you should not do it.

_Number three: do you feel uneasy when you do it?_ Had ya just as soon for somebody not see you doin’ what it is you’d done decided is alright for you to do?

And_ Number four: Can you give thanks and say ‘Lord, I thank ya for providing this for me.’?_ Alright, you’d done made up your mind: you’re gonna do it. The Bible says, give thanks for all things. So when you do it, can ya say ‘Lord, thank ya for providing this for me. And I some kinda thank ya, for fixin’ it where I can commit to what it is I’m doin.’?

What is right or wrong? Do you ask other people? Do you argue with yourself? Do you feel uneasy when you do it? Can ya give thanks and say ‘Lord, I thank ya for providing this for me.’?  If you can’t, you better watch out…You’re fixin’ to mess up.”


----------



## greybeard (Jan 31, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> devermb said:
> 
> 
> > devermb said:
> ...


Good grief, he is conflicted about dropping 12k on a camera system and is asking other shutter bugs what they think.  Part of him loves the idea of  "Leica" but  another part of him can't justify the cost.  This is not a life changing decision, unless he is going to charge it on a credit card at 35% interest or something like that.


----------



## loonatic45414 (Feb 3, 2017)

I think I'm staying with film for awhile.  At least until the technology gets to the point where improvements are negligible from model to model.  A lot like computers. Mine is 5 years old and I have no need to upgrade until I'm forced to by hardware manufacturers, internet security & software writers who no longer support my platform or keep me safe.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 3, 2017)

greybeard said:


> Good grief, he is conflicted about dropping 12k on a camera system and is asking other shutter bugs what they think.  Part of him loves the idea of  "Leica" and another part of him can't justify the cost.  This is not a life changing decision, unless he is going to charge it on a credit card with 25% interest or something like that.



Ok, true.  But if we accepted this as a premise then none of us would get to play Dr. Phil.  Or Dr. Who.  I dunno, one of the two...


----------



## Frank F. (Feb 3, 2017)

devermb said:


> I am poised to buy a Leica M.  I am looking for something I can carry the world round, sometimes in physically rough places.  I also want something discrete.  I have Canons, but they are large, with large lenses, and they are not as durable presumably as a Leica built with more metal.
> I am also intrigued by the quality of photos of the Leica.  What separates a Leica M photo from other photos?
> Any  observations, criticisms of and answers to this would be much appreciated.



Leica? There are people who like ha, other who do not like ha ... Technically the best Like ha currently is the SL: Amazon.com : Leica SL (Typ 601) Mirrorless Digital Camera with Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90mm f/2.8-4 ASPH. Lens (International Model) No Warranty : Camera & Photo

But if you only have a budget of 12.000 US$ you should think twice.

My choice was Nikon big and Fuji small.

In the price region you should be able to get the GFX medium format Fuji camera with three lenses, or cheaper and smaller the excellent XPro2 or X-T2.

I currently have the X100T, want to upgrade he to the X100F anbd possibly buy the GFX too.


----------



## Solarflare (Feb 4, 2017)

Well, its your money, so - its your choice. But personally I definitely dont think its worth it to spend $12k on Leica M, no. Quite frankly, with the release of the Fuji G system, everything else in that price range seems poor bang for the buck now.

If I really would want Leica M, I would get a M9 or M-E from the used market and old leica glas from eBay. Much cheaper, but hardly worse in quality, plus these old lenses have more character than the new stuff and the CCD sensor from the M9/M-E already has a legendary status; I dont have much contact with Leica M users even on the net but it seems to me many of them still prefer the rendering of the old CCD sensor.

I would estimate that would run for about $4k total; $2.5k for the camera and about $1.5k for two lenses.

Either way, if you want to get into Leica M, good bang for the buck really shouldnt be your priority anyway. Why does Leica still exists ? I believe it is because the most imporant part of a camera is always the lens and Leica still puts massive priority into the quality of their lenses.


----------



## Gary A. (Feb 4, 2017)

I keep seeing this post and I keep thinking about it ... So here is a more thoughtful answer.  But firstly, you asked a general question ... so my answer is equally general.

No, from purely a photographic viewpoint. Other camera systems will give you much more cluck for the buck with no significant, if any, reduction in IQ.  

From a collector's viewpoint, yes.  When you come back from your travels you can sell the Leica system and not lose much on the resale.

If you are a photographer, (as opposed to a collector), and you must have the Leica rendering that you see coming from Leica lenses ... and you demand a Full Frame camera ... then get a Sony A7 series camera, Leica adaptors and some Leica lenses.  If you can live with an APS-C sensor, then get a Fuji, Leica adaptors and Leica lenses. The best of both worlds. (If you want a rangefinder-ish experience and Leica lenses get a X-Pro2.) If I was in your shoes, and a photographer That is what I'd do.  If I was in your shoes and a collector, I'd spend the $12,000 and travel the world with a Leica around my neck.  (Which honestly, is pretty cool thing to do ... but the Sony or Fuji options are more practical but less romantic.)


----------



## loonatic45414 (Feb 4, 2017)

I'd adapt the Leica glass to whatever camera body that's good for the money. All the other lenses aren't very impressive except for Zeiss and maybe Voigtlander.

I prefer the non-ASPH Summicron 50 and Tele-Elmarit 90. You can get both for under $2000 and it's outstanding glass. I can't see enough of a difference in the ASPH that would justify the cost anyway.

If it's zoom you want, Zeiss made an excellent one for the Contax/Yashica mount 40mm-80mm if I recall.

I don't know how well these lenses work with the full-frame digitals out there though.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk


----------



## trstick1 (Feb 4, 2017)

Long time ago, as a student, I attended a photo workshop and being a Nikon guy, I owned a Nikon F2 camera, a lady came up to me asking for help on how to use the Nikon F1 camera she brought and she has no photography training at all. I asked her why did you buy that Nikon F1 camera? She said she saw many great photos taken with that F1 camera and thought her F1 camera will take great photos too. I told her it is the lifetime of photography skills to make a great picture, not the camera.

Sent from my Mix using Tapatalk


----------



## greybeard (Feb 4, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> I keep seeing this post and I keep thinking about it ... So here is a more thoughtful answer.  But firstly, you asked a general question ... so my answer is equally general.
> 
> No, from purely a photographic viewpoint. Other camera systems will give you much more cluck for the buck with no significant, if any, reduction in IQ.
> 
> ...


And I think the OP gets all this.  Like I wrote, he is conflicted


----------



## Gary A. (Feb 4, 2017)

greybeard said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > I keep seeing this post and I keep thinking about it ... So here is a more thoughtful answer.  But firstly, you asked a general question ... so my answer is equally general.
> ...


I think I nicely summarized all the pros and cons.  Often a summary is helpful in making a final decision. Sorry you think otherwise.


----------



## trstick1 (Feb 5, 2017)

There are cameras like Sony and Fuji with better exposure and sharpness results and much cheaper than Leica and you can get adapters to fit Leica lenses.

Sent from my Mix using Tapatalk


----------



## droaingsong (Feb 5, 2017)

I would go for Fuji as its much cheaper and better results in terms of sharpness.


----------



## greybeard (Feb 5, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Gary A. said:
> ...


Not at all, I like your summarization.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 6, 2017)

Maybe the OP would like to look at this:
Used Leica Deals, save some money on lenses for your new Leica M! – STEVE HUFF PHOTOS


----------



## hteasley (Mar 9, 2017)

devermb said:


> I am poised to buy a Leica M.  I am looking for something I can carry the world round, sometimes in physically rough places.  I also want something discrete.  I have Canons, but they are large, with large lenses, and they are not as durable presumably as a Leica built with more metal.
> 
> I am also intrigued by the quality of photos of the Leica.  What separates a Leica M photo from other photos?
> 
> Any  observations, criticisms of and answers to this would be much appreciated.


Nothing. Leica lenses are always at least great, with some that are unbeatable, but really, the marginal differences between Leica and the best of other manufacturers are slight, and can favor either.

Go with Leica if you like to shoot manually. I do, so Leica is what I shoot. If I didn't want to shoot manually, I'd shoot something else.

Sent from my Pixel C using Tapatalk


----------



## WhaleDaughter (Mar 9, 2017)

devermb said:


> I am poised to buy a Leica M.  I am looking for something I can carry the world round, sometimes in physically rough places.  I also want something discrete.  I have Canons, but they are large, with large lenses, and they are not as durable presumably as a Leica built with more metal.
> 
> I am also intrigued by the quality of photos of the Leica.  What separates a Leica M photo from other photos?
> 
> Any  observations, criticisms of and answers to this would be much appreciated.



The questions I'd ask myself are, if I'm traveling and get tag-teamed (or lose it myself), can I afford (financially and emotionally) to lose a $12000 camera system? And as a follow-up, how much will the stress of worrying about loss/theft/damage take away from my enjoyment of travel and photography?

Could you perhaps rent this set-up to see if it will really fill your needs? There are plenty of times I've romanticized something, only to have it fall flat when I finally try it out.


"Rule 408: Time is not the boss of you"


----------

