What's the deal with Leica anyway?

Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
18,480
Location
London
For some reason this occurred to me today. Being a hobbyist with a middling-to-"fair" idea of the market I've never really had any interaction/interest in Leica beyond knowing that they're stupidly expensive. But why is that the case? I understand the top of the range DSLR bodies can hit £2-3k (D5, 1D etc.) but for example the Leica m10 is basically double that :confused: It's not like you see a huge amount of pros with Leica, so what gives? Are they just a fashion accessory? For people with more money than sense? :confused:

How do those in "the know" judge Leica kit? :)
 
Basically yeah - they're mostly a fashion accessory, with older models such as the Leica S (which are very expensive) being pretty rubbish compared to similarly priced Phase One medium format backs (which pros definitely do use) I think their newer offerings have sensors made by STMicroelectronics, but I don't think they're as good as the current crop of Sony sensors - which are excellent if the A7Riii, D850, Hasselblad/GFX/Phase one CMOS backs are anything to go by.

Leica lenses on the other hand are very good, I'd say they're probably better than most other DSLR lenses - but then again, they're very expensive and that means finding reviews, or comparisons of them very difficult.

At the end of the day, with DSLRs, once you spend a certain amount of money - you rapidly reach the point of diminishing returns, if you spend £3-4k on an A7Riii, D850 or 5Dmk iv, or whatever - spending another £5k on an equivilant Leica setup might yield slightly better corner sharpness due to their lenses and MTF performance, and maybe better rendering - but probably worse dynamic range due to the sensors not being as good...

So yeah - unless you're got money to burn and want to look cool, it's probably not worth it.
 
I like the look of the Leica (as in video and photos) Jon Olson uses them and they do look nice over a normal DSLR and he also uses red cameras which are stupid money.

It's all about the look.
 
It's partly down to the shooting experience too. They are very minimal and stripped back cameras, not covered in buttons and loads of rubbish to distract you from the shooting process.

I was tempted by an M10 at one point, but as with all digital cameras, they'll be outdated in no time. I opted for a really good condition M6 (film camera), and bought a new 50mm summicron lens. It's my daily walkabout camera combo, and I've not had any regrets about buying it.
 
Is this like all the gear, no idea? :p
That could have been the first and only reply to this thread by the sounds of it. Thanks guys :)

I like the look of the Leica (as in video and photos) Jon Olson uses them and they do look nice over a normal DSLR and he also uses red cameras which are stupid money.
I've never heard of that guy but a quick look at his YT shows me that I hate him, lol. What business does one have using a RED cam for YT anyway? :confused:
 
That could have been the first and only reply to this thread by the sounds of it. Thanks guys :)

I've never heard of that guy but a quick look at his YT shows me that I hate him, lol. What business does one have using a RED cam for YT anyway? :confused:
He just likes good cameras.
 
He just likes good cameras.
Well having worked for years in film post production and knowing first-hand the total PITA it is processing RED raw files I don't see why someone would put themselves through it for a YT/Instagram video! Each to their own though, can't knock a guy for liking to play with expensive toys.
 
Well having worked for years in film post production and knowing first-hand the total PITA it is processing RED raw files I don't see why someone would put themselves through it for a YT/Instagram video! Each to their own though, can't knock a guy for liking to play with expensive toys.
He dosent use the red now due to the processing it takes.
 
If you remove the “feel” and the experience of shooting manual with this tiny body and tiny lenses than looking at the images alone, you would be hard to justify on a business level to get a Leica. Certainly won’t be finding them shooting at the Olympics or for Nat Geo at the South Pole for Empire Penguins.


My observations is that most Leica users buy it for the lust for that brand, out of their own pocket, it is a bit like wanting a Gibson Custom Shop. Why would you spend £5,000 on a guitar when a £500 can do the same thing and to any listener, it would sound 99% identical when you play a song, most of the feel would be down to the player and the music. And that 1% in feel, that £4500 extra is purely to satisfy the player who is using the instrument, which I am sure is important because as a user, you want to feel good playing it, I too am guilty being an owner of a Gibson Custom Shop so I understand that side of the argument but I am not a professional guitar player so for me, the importance of feel is more like than 1%. It’s like expecting having a quality guitar to make up for my lack of talent, expecting amazing results just because of the quality instrument but the truth is the money would be better spent on lessons and then get a cheap guitar…(I should really do that but the Gibson is so nice!)

The difference is an expensive guitar does the same job as a cheap one, except an expensive Leica does less than a cheaper Sony or Canon or Nikon camera. You end up paying more for less.

You can, if you want, get best of both worlds by getting a Sony body with a Leica adaptor and put on a Leica glass in front. To be honest, there are plenty of great FANTASTIC glass on other systems, Zeiss makes equally good glass on all kind of mounts, some of the Canon L is up there too like the 35L mk2, Sony GM is also fantastic, so is the Sony Zeiss 50/1.4 and I only heard good things about the Fuji X-mount glass, well I have a few of them too.


That said, I have never seen any Leica user said they regret getting their Leica, perhaps there is something about it, but is it worth the extra? I feel like I am too poor to even ask to try one, one time I was in a Leica dealer store in Hong Kong where I recall they had gold plated limited edition bodies. I had with me at that point a new 5Dmk3 with a 35L over my shoulder, even with that in hand I feel like I didn’t belong there. The aura the brand is such that they are more a luxury brand, like a Prada bag or Tiffany necklace or a Rolex Submariner than any kind of tool to take photographs with.


As for build quality, I am sure the Leica is built well, but I’d be surprised if it is built as well like the 1Dx or D5, where you can take it out in pouring rain for hours and be abused in all kind of scenarios. I might way off the mark with a general statement but my impression is that a large percentage of Leica users tend to baby their camera and put it away when there is a first sign of rain, and then call it “well built”.
 
except an expensive Leica does less than a cheaper Sony or Canon or Nikon camera. You end up paying more for less.

I'm surprised to read you posting something like that. Cameras aren't all about having the most AF points, FPS or other stats that most, not all people will ever use. Yes you do pay more for less, but that is exactly the point. It's all about focusing (no pun intended) on the photo you're trying to take, rather than what settings you need etc.

Plus, I can't speak for digital bodies, but my 20 year old M6 cost quite a bit as you can imagine, but I know I'll be able to sell it for near that if that day ever comes. Same for the lens, to some degree.
 
I'm surprised to read you posting something like that. Cameras aren't all about having the most AF points, FPS or other stats that most, not all people will ever use. Yes you do pay more for less, but that is exactly the point. It's all about focusing (no pun intended) on the photo you're trying to take, rather than what settings you need etc.

Plus, I can't speak for digital bodies, but my 20 year old M6 cost quite a bit as you can imagine, but I know I'll be able to sell it for near that if that day ever comes. Same for the lens, to some degree.

I said it because it’s true, on a pure tech level you do pay more for less.

The less is better for user experience is exactly the other point I mentioned.

As for cost and value, I mentioned that too with the example of Rolex.

Everything I posted is true.

To put it simply, Leica is a camera people lust after, it’s not a camera you buy if you want a tool. The need for them are very different, the purpose of them are very different these days. Leica strips away things and sell you the experience of shooting a Leica, other cameras don’t really sell you an experience, they sell you their capabilities, their end results.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom