# What makes Leicas so collectible?



## Senor Hound (May 9, 2008)

I am a noob to photography, and one thing that intrigues me is the Leica Rangefinder.  Even though its not an SLR, it is still very popular, very good, and very expensive.  I hear MANY great photographers of the 20th century would rather have one of them over a Nikon F-(insert number here) or Canon.  
What makes them so great?  I read about the rangefinder design and it seemed like it wouldn't work as well (so obviously I'm missing something).  I know Leica's quality is out of this world, but what makes them so great, and what makes them so collectible?

This question is asked with respect, and not skepticism.  From a purely aesthetic viewpoint, I find them to be very cool (I want one...along with everyone else  )


----------



## Helen B (May 9, 2008)

I think that you have asked two questons: one about collectability and one about usability. I don't collect Leicas, but I do use them, so I'll try to answer the questions about 'why a rangefinder?' and 'why a Leica?' - though briefly.

_"I read about the rangefinder design and it seemed like it wouldn't work as well (so obviously I'm missing something)."_

Rangefinders and SLRs have different strengths and weaknesses. It's good to be able to choose.

With a rangefinder you are framing by using a bright frame suspended in a wide field - you can see what is going on outside the frame. Everything is in focus. This tends to help you to keep a feeling of connectedness with the world. Conversely I find an SLR viewfinder to have a feeling of separation and concentration. Sometimes I want the connectedness, sometimes I want the separation. It's a subtle, difficult to describe thing.

A rangefinder of the quality and design of a Leica can be easily focussed in lower light levels than an SLR, but you can only focus on the centre spot, so you may have to reframe after focusing. 

There's no mirror box in a rangefinder camera. That means that the lenses can extend closer to the film plane. Wide angle lenses do not therefore have to be retrofocus designs to the same extent as with an SLR. This helps with size and image quality. 

Rangefinder cameras are generally small in comparison to SLRs.

That's enough for now. There's plenty more I could write, but it would take longer than I have right now.
Best,
Helen


----------



## usayit (May 9, 2008)

Helen pretty much summed it up.  You can write volumes to the topic.  My personal reasons:

Why a rangefinder?

* Flat out.. I just enjoy photography more with a rangefinder than an SLR. It is a different style of shooting that doesn't necessarily mean better.  Helen described it best as "connected".  For me and my SLR, the joy comes from seeing the final print.  WIth my rangefinder, I enjoy shooting as well as seeing the final print.

* I like seeing the world unrestricted... seeing everything.  It is unlike the tunnel vision offered by SLRs.  Walk around and observe the environment with just your eyes.  You see or invision a picture and imagine how it is framed.  This experience is for the most part uninterrupted once you bring the rangefinder to your eye.  You are framing a subject.  An SLR presents that experience differently since you are no longer framing the subject but seeing it through a restricted and magnified (focal length) manner.

* Equipment is much more compact and easier to carry on a daily basis. Shortly before selling all my Canon primes, I snapped this photo to demonstrate the differences in size:







(Keep in mind, the rangefinder lenses in the photo are not even the most compact.)

* Simplicity.

Why Leica?

* Glass is wonderful.  Even the old 1950s glass has a certain look that can be easily leveraged for creativity.

* Build quality on all of Leica's M rangefinders is first rate.  A brand new M7 will have a very familiar feel of quality found in a 1950s M3.  In a world of cheap materials and plastic, I have a lot of respect for Leica and their conservative stance to up hold quality.

* I have to admit that there is a panache associated with Leica as well.  The same shared with BMW and Mercedes owners.  The same shared with Rolex owners.  Panache alone wasn't enough to sell me on Leica.  I didn't like their P&S, their R system SLRs, or the Digital body shared with Panasonics.. hence I don't own them.


Why Collect?

* I do not understand the Leica collector's world myself.  I find it really bizarre...  

* I do understand the want to collect cameras.  The drive is no different from a coin or stamp collector.  I find old cameras beautiful.  I don't collect "Leica" persay but I collect cameras.. mOstly pentax.




Keep in mind that there are still some very big advantages SLRs have over rangefinders.  The longest lens on an M-mount rangefinder is 135mm, Macro is not really practical, and zoom is pretty much non-existent.  FOr those reasons I still shoot with an SLR as well.

Remember that to you don't have to spend loads of $$$ to experiment with rangefinders.  Voigtlander, Canon, and nikon all made rangefinders... You can pickup a Canon QL17 for under $50 (generally $20).  Voigtlander (Cosina) has an entire line of new rangefinders and lenses for reasonable prices.  A good site for information regarding rangefinders in general is www.cameraquest.com.  They are also a voigtlander dealer.



btw... yes. prices for Leica equipment is insane.


----------



## Mitica100 (May 10, 2008)

All that needed to be said, was said! Very well said, might I add...

I can't really explain _"why Leica"_ but you must hold one in your hand and shoot with it. Try the same with any older or newer SLRs and compare.


----------



## Early (Jun 5, 2008)

So true!  Out of all the cameras I let slip through my hands, it was the Leica M3 that I miss the most.


----------



## Tasmaster (Jun 5, 2008)

This might sound weird, but here goes. I get the thing about SLR tunnel vision, and there are times when i want to maintain contact with the "outside-the-frame" world, so... i just keep both eyes open! It works!

I haven't used a rangefinder yet so i don't know how relevant the above is, but i can tell you that i do want to use one, and i'm not even sure why. I value the compact size and handling, the more direct approach, but it goes beyond that; i just have to try a rangefinder because it is different in a way that intrigues me.

Collectibles are collectibles, there doesn't need to be a reason behind that. If enouh people decide that they want something relatively rare, it becomes collectible. Leicas are good cameras, old, rare, so people collect them.


----------



## usayit (Jun 5, 2008)

usayit said:


> btw... yes. prices for Leica equipment is insane.



Speaking of..... 

Prices on new Leica stuff just went up 10% across the board (excluding the M8).  IIRC, that's the 3rd time in less than a year!  Sheesh..


----------



## frfefarfearz (Jun 8, 2008)

usayit said:


> Why Leica?
> 
> * Glass is wonderful. Even the old 1950s glass has a certain look that can be easily leveraged for creativity.


 
i also have this same thought as the one who started the thread..

so you say, basically its the optics on leica's that makes it good?

hmmm i really want a leica myself since im very curious of the output photos that i will have from it.


----------



## Mitica100 (Jun 8, 2008)

frfefarfearz said:


> i also have this same thought as the one who started the thread..
> 
> so you say, basically its the optics on leica's that makes it good?
> 
> hmmm i really want a leica myself since im very curious of the output photos that i will have from it.


 
Well... It's not the engine alone or the tires alone on a Lamborghini that makes it fun to drive, it's the whole package. Yeah, the optics are great on Leicas but it's the whole experience that satisfies one, from the moment you load it until you have your pictures developed.


----------



## shorty6049 (Jun 8, 2008)

:meh:I am not looking for an argument or anything here, but i've never used a Leica, and don't really have any strong desire to try one... 

I guess personally, i like the technology of a DSLR. If i want a rangefinder, i'll shoot film and buy a camera for 50 bucks.


----------



## usayit (Jun 8, 2008)

*  Deciding Digital versus Film is a completely different discussion from Rangefinder versus SLR.  Econobox sedan and a ferrari both can get you from A to B but the Ferrari is more exciting.
* A Canonet goes for under $50.  Its a rangefinder.. 

I like digital too... digital rangefinder that is...   I also own a 1DMII and L lenses for when an SLR is more appropriate.


So other than to say you like SLRs.. did you have another point?


----------



## usayit (Jun 8, 2008)

Mitica100 said:


> Well... It's not the engine alone or the tires alone on a Lamborghini that makes it fun to drive, it's the whole package. Yeah, the optics are great on Leicas but it's the whole experience that satisfies one, from the moment you load it until you have your pictures developed.



Could not have said it better myself.  

I'm not delusional... shooting with a Leica (or any camera for that matter) doesn't automatically result in better photos.  

Ferrari or Lamborghini, it doesn't matter..  put me behind either and I will ~not~ turn track times equal to Michael Schumacher.   Probably wouldnn't do much better than my 90s miata.  I sure will have fun trying...


----------



## shorty6049 (Jun 8, 2008)

well... i guess I'm trying to understand the fascination that people have with these things. And i know i'll never get a real (or at least satisfactory) answer to that question, it just feels to me like you pay more and get less. And i know to some of you, thats absolutely not true, so please don't write back arguing that. I'm wrong , you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong to each other in some way... i just dont get it


----------



## usayit (Jun 8, 2008)

The fascination is no different from any hobby or interest.

I don't understand why my co-workers spend thousands upon thousands on watches..    really BIG gaudy watches too!  I just don't get it... 


then again.. I don't even own a watch.


its no different.  I'm sure a cheap Casio is just as accurate.


----------



## shorty6049 (Jun 8, 2008)

haha, yea, watches are something i dont get either. My 20 dollar digital timex works just as well as a 1000 dollar rolex at telling time. better actually.


----------



## Mitica100 (Jun 8, 2008)

shorty6049 said:


> well... i guess I'm trying to understand the fascination that people have with these things. And i know i'll never get a real (or at least satisfactory) answer to that question, it just feels to me like you pay more and get less. And i know to some of you, thats absolutely not true, so please don't write back arguing that. I'm wrong , you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong to each other in some way... i just dont get it



You can't understand it until you actually hold a Leica in your hands, loaded with film and go at it. I didn't, until I had the chance to buy my first Leica (I own three). As to paying more and getting less, that depends on the photographer, not the camera itself. I've seen great pictures taken with crappy cameras and vice-versa.

And I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong, by any means. Everyone here is entitled to his/her opinion. You believe what you may, we're simply trying to answer the question about the Leica fascination. I'm pretty sure you're fascinated by X, Y, Z camera, perhaps a DSLR. Nothing wrong with that, works for you, makes you happy. Same here in my case, with a Leica. BTW, I shoot with other _"pay more get less"_ film cameras like Hasselblad, Linhoff 4x5, and others, they do fascinate me in many ways, but none like a Leica.


----------



## shorty6049 (Jun 8, 2008)

well, it just reminds me of the macbook air or something. Are you paying for the brand, or is it ACTUALLY worth the huge price tag? I really dont think the mac book air is worth the price. I havent tried a leica, but thats how i have always felt about them. They have very good glass, yes. but then why is the body so expensive? I would really like to try a leica, because its not that i don't WANT to believe that they're as great as everyone says they are, its that on paper, they just look like another camera.  So if one of you Leica users out there wants to send me your camera, i'll GLADLY try it out and let you know my final opinion on it ;-)


----------



## usayit (Jun 9, 2008)

shorty6049 said:


> well, it just reminds me of the macbook air or something. Are you paying for the brand, or is it ACTUALLY worth the huge price tag?



Mac book and electronic gadgets are driven by completely different marketing pressures.  Their pricing is generally based on being at the edge of technology and offering something that no other brand is currently offering.  These products are not celebrated for their timeless classic designs and quality but for their ability to push technology another step.  Once that step has been taken.. thats it... on to the next iteration. 

The mac book air IS going head to head with UMPCs.  It was never meant to compete against the value of the MacBook nor the professional MacBook Pro.  If you want an ultra portable machine running Mac OS X, there is no other competitor.  This is no different from the iPod that offered the next step in portable music... and the Iphone that offered innovations in sleek design and UI .  Products that raise the bar...


----------



## usayit (Jun 9, 2008)

shorty6049 said:


> but then why is the body so expensive?



One thing the marketing guys have always reminded me is that the cost of a particular good or service has almost nothing to do with the cost of providing those goods or services.  It has everything to do with maximizing profits.  If you can sell a 10 cent sheet of paper printed with a famous name for $100 dollars then all the better.  It doesn't mean that that sheet of paper will hold written word any better than a plain sheet of paper.

Now I'm not saying that Leica is just a plain overpriced camera... I'm simply stating that sticker price is an awful indicator on the quality or performance of a product.

Leica is a small German company with a long tradition in low volume, high quality products.  THe idea is that the product itself should sell itself. Traditional European design and business has always gone a different path from the American form of business.  American business is all about selling a large quantity of a product at an affordable price.  This is in part the root of the cost of Leica products relative to other products.  Oh and I said "relateive to other products"..... how many products out there are "leica like" or competitors to Leica?? NOT many.. to almost zero.  This is the another reason for the cost of Leica.


btw. the recent rise in Leica prices is in part the falling dollar...


----------



## AndrewG (Jun 9, 2008)

Reasons for collecting Leica? Well, historically, the Leica is important; it was the first camera designed to use 35mm film and was originally conceived by its inventor Oscar Barnack as a test bed for movie 35mm film stock.
Other reasons? Pick one up; the engineering and build quality are superlative and the image quality from Leitz lenses has a breathtaking, luminous quality that DSLR's can only dream about.
I have owned two, the M6TTL and M7. Cash crises forced me to sell both with much regret.


----------



## Mitica100 (Jun 9, 2008)

AndrewG said:


> Reasons for collecting Leica? Well, historically, the Leica is important; it was the first camera designed to use 35mm film and was originally conceived by its inventor Oscar Barnack as a test bed for movie 35mm film stock.
> Other reasons? Pick one up; the engineering and build quality are superlative and the image quality from Leitz lenses has a breathtaking, luminous quality that DSLR's can only dream about.
> I have owned two, the M6TTL and M7. Cash crises forced me to sell both with much regret.



That pretty much says it! Try selling a DSLR in about 20 years, you'll see how much (or how little) you get for it. Leica distinguishes itself from other makers by the fact that it is both a collector's dream and a user's dream.


----------



## Helen B (Jun 9, 2008)

AndrewG said:


> Other reasons? Pick one up; the engineering and build quality are superlative and the image quality from Leitz lenses has a breathtaking, luminous quality that DSLR's can only dream about.



Leica lenses aren't so bad either.

Best,
Helen


----------



## usayit (Jun 9, 2008)

One thing that hasn't been mentioned (and they deserve to be) are the numerous (now famous) journalists/photographers that picked up a Leica throughout the years and documented history.  If it wasn't for them... things would have been different for Leica (Leitz Camera). 

How many Magnum photographers used the Leica rangefinder?


My only complaint against Leica's business is that their marketing has placed their equipment in the realm of "boutique" like products that doctors/lawyers/etc shoot.  It wasn't suppose to cameras that you treat like a rolex and collect.. they were suppose to be the workhorse camera of quality.


----------



## Senor Hound (Jun 9, 2008)

usayit said:


> My only complaint against Leica's business is that their marketing has placed their equipment in the realm of "boutique" like products that doctors/lawyers/etc shoot.  It wasn't suppose to cameras that you treat like a rolex and collect.. they were suppose to be the workhorse camera of quality.



I second that.  Where I work there are a lot of doctors and lawyers and such, and I see a lot of Leicas accordingly.  For them ts a status symbol, like a Mont Blanc pen, a Rolex watch, etc.


----------



## shorty6049 (Jun 9, 2008)

Thats basically where my first comment stemmed from.  so i third(?) that.


----------



## usayit (Jun 9, 2008)

shorty6049 said:


> Thats basically where my first comment stemmed from.  so i third(?) that.



but it was just a recent thing....  It started with the M6 classic when Leica made dozens of "commemorative" edition cameras like the Historica, Royal Danish Wedding, Gold Thailand, Platinum Bruckner, Jaguar XK 50, etc...   (puke).

My M6 Titanium, for example, seems to be a complete disconnect between the engineers that designed it and those that marketed it.  The M6 Titanium was created to bring to market a finish that was significantly more durable than chrome and MUCH more durable than black paint.   Mine does not show a single scratch... it is extremely scratch resistant (but will still dent as the titanium is a finish.. a later M7 titanium was actually made of a solid piece of Titanium).  I look at it and except for wear on the body covering, it looks brand new... I purchased it used (i am the 3rd owner) and the previous owner mentioned that the camera was not "babied".    The finish brings a very rugged finish to a camera begging to be used.... it should have been marketed as such.  Unfortunately, the camera was marketed as if Titanium was a luxury rather than a design of practicality.  It completely fell out of favor with Leica shooters that actually use the camera and wanted to distance themselves from the stigma of the rich "collectors".  It wasn't Leica's bigger sellers.


Despite the marketing snafu... as I said... the price of a product is often not an indicator of anything other than profit margins.  The M6 is still a quality product that holds up to the Leica name.  There isn't anything out there that compares.... 

Other's I have had this discussion with say that this marketing behavior was out of sheer need to survive.  Leica (the company) is EXTREMELY tiny compared to the bigger folks like Nikon and Canon.  They must generate revenue to keep the R&D pipeline moving... or simply go out of business.  For this revenue, rather than go head to head with Nikon, Minolta, Canon etc... they appealed to the more wealthy customer....

This is very similar to Ferrari's story.  Ferrari is most well known on the track producing extremely high performing race cars.  Unfortunately, the company cannot just survive on their racing program.. they still need to generate revenue in order to survive.  I surmise they could have attempted to market "reasonable" priced vehicles to go head to head with the Chevy Corvette and other cars in that price range but they would be at a disadvantage due to their size.  Instead, Ferrari (just like Leica) appealed to the wealthy customers where they can build a name and to generate revenue.  Just like Leica, Ferrari's production cars are extremely expensive but it doesn't mean that they do not perform.  The high end Corvette can keep up (even beat) a production Ferrari at a fraction of the cost... but it doesn't mean (in Shorty's words) "less for more".


----------



## AndrewG (Jun 10, 2008)

shorty6049 said:


> well... i guess I'm trying to understand the fascination that people have with these things. And i know i'll never get a real (or at least satisfactory) answer to that question, it just feels to me like you pay more and get less. And i know to some of you, thats absolutely not true, so please don't write back arguing that. I'm wrong , you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong to each other in some way... i just dont get it


 
It really isn't that difficult to understand; if you understand superlative quality in a mechanical object where form and function are perfectly blended then you'll understand Leica. The lenses have few peers; take a look at the work of photographers who use these and you cannot fail to be impressed.
You don't get much diamond for your money either; a Rolex watch won't tell you the time in Lagos or feature a calculator but I prefer to wear mine over a Timex.
Quality trumps quantity-every time.


----------



## dinodan (Jun 19, 2008)

usayit said:


> Speaking of.....
> 
> Prices on new Leica stuff just went up 10% across the board (excluding the M8). IIRC, that's the 3rd time in less than a year! Sheesh..


 
A consequence of the tanking dollar, I suppose...


----------



## reg (Jun 19, 2008)

Well, yeah the tanking dollar and the fact that Leicas aren't American made.


----------



## AndrewG (Jun 20, 2008)

reg said:


> Well, yeah the tanking dollar and the fact that Leicas aren't American made.


 
...not much is these days!


----------



## Battou (Jun 20, 2008)

AndrewG said:


> ...not much is these days!



Hence the tanking dollar....but any who....I find my self having trouble taking mine more than fifty feet from the house.....


----------



## compur (Jun 22, 2008)

Found at an estate sale this weekend for 5 tanking dollars:







Looks great and works perfectly. :mrgreen:


----------



## LWW (Jun 22, 2008)

compur said:


> Found at an estate sale this weekend for 5 tanking dollars:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think those were actually made by Canon ... but I'll give you $10.00 for it anyway.

LWW


----------



## LWW (Jun 22, 2008)

BTW, I've never owned a Leica but have used a couple belonging to friends and own a few other RF cameras.

A few points:

- Overall I much prefer an SLR, and use Nikon, because of the availability to concentrate on what the actual photo will look like thru the VF. I like being able to stop down and see the DOF thru the VF. I like the availability of zoo.m lenses. I'm not saying these are right or wrong for everyone but they work for me in the majority of my shooting ... but not all.

- Like RF's for inside such as plays, museums, public forums and whatnot shooting as they are much quieter. They are also much lighter and easier to handhold in low light.

Overall, both are tools but different tools. I can assemble things with a hammer or with a screwdriver, but I own both hammers and screwdrivers because each is superior to the other under the right conditions.

Now, as to a Leica ... and let me say my goal is NOT to start a flame war or insult anyone's camera of choice. I am merely stating my opinion and each reader may give it whatever value they deem it ot be worth.

- Leica cameras, not the Canon rebrands, are IMHO the most overpriced camera on the market. That's not saying they are bad because they are also IMHO they are amazing pieces. They are very high quality, seem to be quite reliable to the best of my knowledge, and handle/function quite well. So does a Nikon for a fraction of the cost.

- The main reason, again my opinion, to own a Leica is their glass is awesome. It is awesomely expensive as well. Leica lenses and Nikkor lenses are top notch glass and build quality ... especially the Nikkor pro grade stuff. Again, Nikkors can be had for a fraction of the cost.

I have honestly lusted after a Leica since I bought my first Yashica SLR, and have never lost that lust I've went through Nikon F/F2/F3/F4 and now a D50.

I am at a point in life where I could actually afford a new Leica, but will probably never buy one simply because I'm too ding - diddly - arned cheap to let go of the money.

LWW


----------



## Mitica100 (Jun 22, 2008)

Let me just throw in here one single fact:

I own and shoot with a 1933 or 1934 Leica IIIa (LMT or SM). The camera functions flawlessly, more so, the spacing between the frames is the same, accurate to the highest degree of perfection. Does this make any camera a great camera? Not necessarily but it shows reliability over the years and the high degree of precision they were built with.

I've shot with other sophisticated cameras, I somehow go back to this simple, yet satisfying to shoot Leica IIIa.


----------

